IDG Contributor Network: Online manipulation is the the latest data protection debate

As privacy controversies continue to absorb public attention both here and in Europe, we are hearing more and more about manipulative “dark patterns” where online services nudge people toward their preferred choices. One consumer report says these websites might be in violation of Europe’s new General Data Protection Regulation because the consent resulting from such manipulative practices is not informed and freely given. 

In the U.S., Senator Mark Warner has proposed a Congressional determination that “design tricks to exploit human psychology” are unfair and deceptive practices to be prohibited by the Federal Trade Commission.

To read this article in full, please click here

As privacy controversies continue to absorb public attention both here and in Europe, we are hearing more and more about manipulative “dark patterns” where online services nudge people toward their preferred choices. One consumer report says these websites might be in violation of Europe’s new General Data Protection Regulation because the consent resulting from such manipulative practices is not informed and freely given. 

In the U.S., Senator Mark Warner has proposed a Congressional determination that “design tricks to exploit human psychology” are unfair and deceptive practices to be prohibited by the Federal Trade Commission.

To read this article in full, please click here

IDG Contributor Network: Ohio v. American Express is sensible antitrust policy

IDG Contributor Network: Ohio v. American Express is sensible antitrust policy

IDG Contributor Network: The challenges and perils of intermediary liability

Recently, in response to high-profile mass shootings, payment card companies have begun to refuse service to merchants who traffic in guns. Card companies have the right to choose with whom they do business, a discretion limited by laws protecting people from discrimination based on race, gender, religious belief and the like, none of which seem to apply in this case. 

The gun merchants are outraged and are considering going to Congress to seek a new law that would treat them as a constitutionally-protected class. The Supreme Court, after all, has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. How can that right be realized in practice if people cannot use their credit cards to buy guns?

To read this article in full, please click here

Recently, in response to high-profile mass shootings, payment card companies have begun to refuse service to merchants who traffic in guns. Card companies have the right to choose with whom they do business, a discretion limited by laws protecting people from discrimination based on race, gender, religious belief and the like, none of which seem to apply in this case. 

The gun merchants are outraged and are considering going to Congress to seek a new law that would treat them as a constitutionally-protected class. The Supreme Court, after all, has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. How can that right be realized in practice if people cannot use their credit cards to buy guns?

To read this article in full, please click here

IDG Contributor Network: The challenges and perils of intermediary liability

Recently, in response to high-profile mass shootings, payment card companies have begun to refuse service to merchants who traffic in guns. Card companies have the right to choose with whom they do business, a discretion limited by laws protecting people from discrimination based on race, gender, religious belief and the like, none of which seem to apply in this case. 

The gun merchants are outraged and are considering going to Congress to seek a new law that would treat them as a constitutionally-protected class. The Supreme Court, after all, has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. How can that right be realized in practice if people cannot use their credit cards to buy guns?

To read this article in full, please click here

Recently, in response to high-profile mass shootings, payment card companies have begun to refuse service to merchants who traffic in guns. Card companies have the right to choose with whom they do business, a discretion limited by laws protecting people from discrimination based on race, gender, religious belief and the like, none of which seem to apply in this case. 

The gun merchants are outraged and are considering going to Congress to seek a new law that would treat them as a constitutionally-protected class. The Supreme Court, after all, has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. How can that right be realized in practice if people cannot use their credit cards to buy guns?

To read this article in full, please click here

IDG Contributor Network: A new patent myth in Washington

A new myth is making the rounds in Washington. It holds that the patent system is under assault and that the U.S. is losing its lead in global innovation thanks to aggressively overactive review procedures at the Patent and Trademark Office that are…

A new myth is making the rounds in Washington. It holds that the patent system is under assault and that the U.S. is losing its lead in global innovation thanks to aggressively overactive review procedures at the Patent and Trademark Office that are striking down valid, commercially important patents. The result, goes the story, is a patent drought in the United States, as discouraged inventors stay home rather than getting caught up in endless and unpredictable reviews of valid patents.

The trouble with this myth is that, like all myths, it relies on faith and ritualistic repetition, rather than evidence.

The object of the complaint is the operation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) which conducts administrative reviews of patents already approved by patent examiners. These PTAB reviews were strengthened seven years ago by the America Invents Act, patent reform legislation that targeted patent trolls who used patents of low quality to extort companies to pay unjustified patent fees. Trolls took advantage of a defect in the patent litigation system, namely, that it was simply too expensive and cumbersome to demonstrate in infringement proceedings that the patents themselves were too broad, too vague or otherwise invalid and should never have been granted in the first place.

To read this article in full, please click here