Jo Sherman spoke with me about her post on the FCPA Blog and how multinationals and their lawyers can deal with EU data protection rules after the Max Schrems decision.
Sherman, the CEO of EDT, advocates bringing the “tools to the data.”
She also reflects on Martin Kenney’s message on the FCPA Blog that the Schrems decision — overturning decades of discovery and investigative practices — will inevitably lead to a “sense of frustration among U.S. investigators.”
______
Richard Bistrong is a contributing editor of the FCPA Blog and CEO of Front-Line Anti-Bribery LLC. He consults, writes and speaks about compliance issues. He can be contacted here.
1 Comment
In the above Link – check out section 8.1 of the settlement agreement and then read Section 8.7, 8.4, as the THINGS YOU MUST DO TO USE THIS IP section and then the Section 8.3, and 8.2 sections which talks to WHO YOU ARE, and finally the SECTION 8.1 again which says California State Law is applied to any and all uses of this IP.
The problem is of course all of the nations in the EU are members both as the EU and individually in both the TRIPS and PCT treaties meaning they are tied to this documents section 8 because it controls both the properly issued US6370629 patent and the other seven which were illegally filed (without releases) and then abandoned. So… this document's controls imposing California Law are functionally global on anyone using complex secured timestamping inside file content or file systems themselves. – http://www.slideshare.net/tglassey/contractsddisettlement
Comments are closed for this article!