Government inspections, raids and investigations are prevalent in today’s business world. These government actions can be based on local, state or federal criminal or civil laws or regulations. Sometimes the company can be the focus or target of the investigation. Sometimes a particular organization within the company can be the focus, or even an individual or a specific group of employees can be targeted. Companies might also be sent third-party subpoenas or requests for documents or information, which require a timely, appropriate response.

The time to consider your response to a government inspection or investigation is before they are knocking on your door. You may be required to provide numerous documents or information in a short timeframe, and likely there will be many questions of you by not only the government, but also those inside and outside your organization.

Things to consider before you find yourself talking to a government investigator or agent include: Is your data kept on hard drives, in a cloud, off-site or on premises? Are key company data and records kept electronically or in hard copy? If the government takes originals of your records, can your business continue to operate without the records? Can you ask the government to take copies of documents and leave the originals on site? If your data is off-site or stored by a third-party, does that company have protocols in place for government inspections or raids? Do you have a media response plan? Are you prepared to answer employee questions? Are you prepared to handle investor concerns? Do you know how your team will respond?

Is your company prepared to address all the questions above? The five actions outlined in this article are a good place to start in becoming more prepared in the event the government knocks on your company’s door.

To read the complete article visit our web site here.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.

In anticipation of an upcoming animated film inspired by the traditional Mexican holiday El Día de los Muertos (in English, The Day of the Dead), Disney recently filed a series of applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office seeking to trademark the phrase “Día de los Muertos.” After a social media firestorm, however, Disney’s attempt turned out to be dead on arrival.

El Día de los Muertos is a holiday to honor departed loved ones that originated in Mexico and is now celebrated by millions in other parts of Latin America, the United States and across the globe. To many, Disney’s attempt to trademark the phrase was seen as an attempt to capitalize on a cultural tradition that would be akin to attempting to trademark words like “Christmas” or “Easter.” People expressed their outrage on Twitter and started a change.org petition to stop the trademark application from proceeding that garnered 19,500 signatures in one day. According to some reports, the proposed trademark “momentarily replaced immigration as the hottest topic among Latinos on Twitter.”

About a week after the filing (and a day after the internet outcry began), Disney decided to withdraw the applications. In a company statement, Disney wrote that the “trademark filing was intended to protect any potential title for our film and related activities. It has since been determined that the title of the film will change.” The online backlash was not mentioned specifically, and the attorney who filed the application on Disney’s behalf declined comment. Disney experienced similar public protest regarding another past trademark application. In 2011, USA Today reports that Disney attempted to trademark the name “Seal Team 6″ (referring to the group of Navy Seals who killed Osama Bin Laden), but later withdrew the application “out of deference to the military.”

While some questioned the wisdom of these trademark attempts from a legal perspective, Disney’s crises over its intellectual property strategy illustrate the growing role that public perception plays in a company’s decision to obtain or to enforce its trademark rights.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.

The Associated Press reports that Facebook published results of a six-month assessment and audit of its privacy practices by an independent auditor. Many may remember that Facebook is required to submit to biennial privacy audits due to a settlement with the FTC from 2012. However, there is no requirement whatsoever to inform the public about results of these audits.

Facebook’s publication of its privacy audit is progressive to say the least. Prior to this week, the standard practice of companies was to bury privacy audit reports within the security, privacy and/or management teams and hope that they could remediate any issues found before the next audit. The general state of privacy within a company is not something that is wildly publicized within the company, and the idea of publishing a report to the public was almost unheard of.

Nevertheless, by publishing this report, Facebook is attempting to show that it is serious about privacy and is taking a step to win consumer confidence. Over the past few years, Facebook has been under increasing scrutiny and received backlash by its customer base over privacy issues, including a changed privacy policy, the aforementioned FTC settlement and other concerns. It is clear that the company wants to do anything possible to convince its users that information provided to the Facebook platform can be trusted to be used by the company in the ways that they say they will use it.

As more and more users make privacy decisions with their feet, Facebook may have changed the game in regards to consumer expectations. Although clearly a slippery slope, it could become the argument that companies have something to hide if an annual privacy audit is not published for public review. More importantly, if a company sets the precedent that they will publish their annual privacy audit, what will consumers think when the company chooses not to publish one?

As a real world example for another company, in October 2012, the FTC hired PwC to perform an audit of Google’s privacy practices based on a requirement from the 2010 settlement between Google and the FTC. Although the audit report was published through a Freedom of Information Act request to the FTC, much of it was redacted, especially the more interesting sections. It will be interesting to see how Google and other companies respond to Facebook’s move in the coming months as more and more audits occur.

What would happen if your company was audited from a privacy perspective? Would you want the results of that audit to be released to the public?

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.

Pictures are everywhere. With digital cameras and high-quality cameras in almost every cell phone, it is very easy for photographers to take a picture anywhere and of anything. However, a lot of photographers do not know that there are intellectual property rights associated with every push of a camera button, and there are legal risks a photographer is exposed to when taking photographs.

Copyrights are a photographer’s best friend, but many photographers do not know or understand what a copyright is. In fact, the U.S. Constitution is the origin of copyright law as Article I, Section 8 states, “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” A copyright protects “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, including photographs. A copyright is secured automatically upon creation, but it must be in a fixed and tangible form of expression. For instance, once that camera button is pressed, a copyright has been created in a photograph whether it is on film or stored digitally. Copyrights cover both published and unpublished works. A photographer’s work is published when copies of a photograph are distributed to the public through sale, distribution or public display.

Usually, the photographer is the owner of the copyright in a photograph. However, if the photographer is an employee of a company for which the photographs are taken or is acting on behalf of an employer, then the employer is the owner of the copyright. Another exception is if the photographer has entered into an agreement or has assigned copyright ownership to another party. A question of ownership commonly arises when photographers take pictures at weddings. Even though the bride and groom pay for their wedding pictures, the photographer retains the copyright in those pictures. In the case of a professional photography studio, the studio may be the owner of the copyrights in the wedding photographs.

After a photograph has been taken, a copyright notice on the photograph may be used to identify the owner of the copyright. There are three elements to the notice: 1) the copyright (the symbol ©, the words Copyright or the abbreviation Copr.); 2) year of first publication (first distributed to the public); and 3) the name of the owner (abbreviation, company name or website). The notice can be placed on the front or back of a photograph or the backing, mounting or frame in which the photograph is contained. While a copyright notice is not required by the U.S. Copyright Office to secure rights in the photograph, it is highly recommended, especially for pictures on the internet, so that others know that they are not entitled to the same rights as the photographer.

As the owner of a copyright, there are certain exclusive rights granted to a photographer. Once a photographer takes a picture, he has the right to copy; prepare derivative works; and sell, display and distribute the photograph to the public. These rights last from the moment the photograph is created until 70 years after the death of the photographer. If the photograph is created from a work-for-hire, the copyright lasts 95 years from publication of the photograph, or 120 years from when the photograph was created, whichever is shorter.

Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is not necessary for a photographer to have rights in a photograph. However, there are several reasons why a photographer should consider registering his photographs. First, the application is inexpensive, about $35 per application. An entire collection of photographs can be registered with a single application. Not only does a registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim, it is required to file a copyright infringement suit in court. A photographer can file a registration at any time during the life of the copyright, but if the photograph is registered within three months after the photograph is published or before it is infringed, statutory damages and attorney’s fees are available in the event of an infringement suit.

In addition to protecting rights in a photograph, photographers also need to be mindful of where, what and who they are taking pictures of and understand how to avoid potential liability. First photographers should take into consideration where they are taking pictures. In particular, it is important to know whether photographs are being taken on public or private property. It is legal to photograph anything and anyone on public property, but photography can be prohibited or restricted on private property. Private property can be photographed from within a public domain, such a public sidewalk, except for when the property owner can be identified from the subject being photographed. Another nuance is private property open to the public, such as a shopping mall, where photography is usually permitted unless it is explicitly prohibited. Additionally, tourist attractions are generally legal for photographers unless explicitly prohibited. With regards to cemeteries, the cemetery owner has the right to set its own rules. For example, Arlington National Cemetery does not allow tripods or lights without permission. Photographers can be asked to leave or be charged with trespassing if they do not follow the rules. National parks also have the right to require special permits or proof of insurance before a photographer can take photographs.

Second, photographers should keep in mind what they are taking pictures of. If a photographer takes a picture of sculptures or other types of art, the photographer may need to obtain permission from the artist to take or use the photograph. The artist does not have any claim to the copyright because the photograph becomes the photographer’s own work of expression through the types of lighting, angles and colors used. A photographer can also take pictures of trademarks, but he may run into issues if others viewing the photograph think that the trademark owner sponsors the photograph. Such confusion can lead to a trademark infringement suit. Therefore, it is important for photographers to keep in mind the subject matter of their photographs.

Finally, most photographers take pictures of other people. Photographing others is governed by privacy laws. Similar to property, photographers do not need to obtain consent of others if photos are taken in a public place. Consent is critical when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities or inside a private residence. There is an exception with public figures as they have a lower expectation of privacy; however, a public figure can prevent the photographer from using the photograph if it is used for advertising. In certain circumstances a model release may be warranted to take the photo of a person. Some factors to consider are: if the person in the photograph is identifiable; the photograph is being taken in a private place; the photograph will be used for advertising or a commercial benefit; there is a chance of disclosing a personal matter; or the photograph is depicting someone in a false light. The release should specify the subject, date, nature of the photograph and what permissions are being given.

Overall, photographers should use their best judgment to determine whether they are violating any intellectual property or privacy laws and, when in doubt, ask for written permission before taking a photograph. After the photograph is taken, it is recommended that a photographer mark his work with a copyright notice to deter others from infringing  his work. If the work is likely to be infringed, a registration application should be filed with the U.S. Copyright Office as soon as possible. Keeping in mind the rights and liabilities before and after taking a picture will only serve to protect the photographer. Therefore, photographers should take care to know these rights before snapping their next picture.

For more information regarding this topic please contact Jana Harris at Jana.Harris@icemiller.com or 317-236-5972.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.

TechPoint, Indiana’s technology initiative, awarded the best in technology in Indiana at the 14th Annual TechPoint Mira Awards on Saturday, April 20, 2013. Out of the 14 award categories, Ice Miller LLP clients captured eight awards and received an honorable mention in a ninth category. A total of 20 Ice Miller clietns were nominated.

TechPoint Mira Awards recognize excellence and innovation through the achievement of Indiana’s outstanding technology industry performers and contributors, and focuses attention on the broader issue of the important role technology plays in Indiana’s economy. The finalists in 2013 covered the marketplace from established corporations and major research universities to fledgling startups, and from creative agencies to cutting edge mobile and emerging technologies.

Ice Miller proudly congratulates all of its clients honored with a 2013 TechPoint Mira Award or nomination! The Firm is excited and honored to relationships with so many creative and innnovative people and companies. This is a truly exciting time for our tech community, and Ice Miller is especially proud of clients playing a vital role in bringing Indiana’s technology sector to the forefront in that community.

2013 Winners and Ice Miller Clients

Mobile Technology Excellence & Innovation Award

BidPal, Inc.

Marketing Technology Excellence & Innovation Award

Angie’s List

Health Information Technology Excellence & Innovation Award

hc1.com Inc.

IT/Tech Service Excellence & Innovation Award

Leadjen

TechPoint Young Professional of the Year Award

Santiago Jaramillo, Founder and CEO at BlueBridge Digital

Trailblazer in Technology Award

Dr. Donald Brown, chariman, CEO, Interactive Intelligence

Emerging, Technology Company of the Year Award

BidPal, Inc.

Tech Company of the Year Award

Interactive Intelligence

Tech Startup of the Year Award

Honorable Mention: BlueBridge Digital

By its own recent estimates, Facebook currently boasts around 1.06 billion active monthly users. While many of these users grapple with questions about their privacy settings or news feed notifications, a growing trend indicates that they might have a new issue to contend with: the possibility that they could be served with legal process via their Facebook account.

Service by Facebook was addressed in a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, wherein the Court authorized the Federal Trade Commission to serve multiple defendants using email and private Facebook messages. In Fed. Trade Commission v. PCCARE247 Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31969 (S.D.N.Y. March 7, 2013), Judge Paul Engelmayer detailed his reasoning for granting the FTC’s request to be permitted to serve multiple foreign defendants with case filings (other than the Summons and Complaint) by email and by Facebook. Judge Engelmayer outlined the multiple attempts that the FTC had made to effect process on five Indian defendants the FTC had accused of engaging in a scheme to induce consumers to pay for unnecessary computer repairs, noting that conventional service required by the Hague Convention had not been completed by the Indian Central Authority more than five months after it had been sent by the FTC. The defendants had actual knowledge of the lawsuit (and had in fact at one time appeared by counsel therein), and the FTC introduced facts establishing a high likelihood that service by email and Facebook would provide the defendants with actual notice of the filings. The Court found it significant that the documents the FTC sought to serve were not case-initiating documents and was convinced that where conventional service methods involved a multiple-month delay, service by Facebook and email comported with Due Process requirements. The Court also observed that the defendants’ own “zealous embrace” of email and Facebook communications (for example, the defendants had used the email addresses at issue to blind copy the Court on emails they sent to counsel for the FTC) further supported this method of service.

A new piece of proposed legislation in Texas would carry Judge Engelmayer’s holding even further. Texas State Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano) recently introduced House Bill Number 1989, which proposes that a Texas court may authorize substituted service on a defendant using a social media website “if the court finds that: (1) the defendant maintains a social media page on that website; (2) the profile on the social media page is the profile of the defendant; (3) the defendant regularly accesses the social media page account; and (4) the defendant could reasonably be expected to receive actual notice if the electronic communication were sent to the defendant’s account.” The bill is currently in committee, and while some Texas lawyers have expressed concern about whether the bill would adequately ensure that the recipient of service actually receives it, others acknowledge that service using non-conventional methods such as email or social media is becoming increasingly important as the way that businesses and people interact and exchange information continues to evolve.

Neither the New York federal court decision nor the proposed Texas legislation endorse using email or social media as the preferred method of service on a party, and both require the serving party to make a significant showing that the recipient is likely to actually receive the service by social media. However, the growing trend of utilizing these types of accounts to effect service indicate efforts by the legal profession to adapt to new technological trends. In an age where seemingly everyone has a social media account, it just may be the case that Facebook service notifications will be coming to your news feed someday soon.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.

As early as next month, the first of nearly 2,000 new generic top level domains (gTLDs) could begin being made available to the public at the rate of 20 per week. A gTLD is the suffix of web addresses, which generally address the subject matter of that domain. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has been working for years to increase the number of available gTLDs beyond the 22 familiar .com, .net, .biz and .info gTLDs and the 250 country codes. This latest expansion is unprecedented in number and will add more generic terms (e.g., .hotel, .auto, .food, etc.) and for the first time brand-specific terms (e.g., .amazon and .nike). A full list of the proposed new gTLDs organized by category may be found at the New gTLD Site here.

With the launch of the new gTLDs is the heightened concern that third parties could register and establish domain names and websites using the gTLDs that incorporate legitimate business names, trade names and trademarks of others. For example, a registrant could attempt to appropriate the well-known Nikon camera name and mark by registering www.nikon.photography. To address these concerns and implement protective measures for trademark owners, ICANN has established the Trademark Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse is a centralized repository of validated trademark rights. Trademark owners who record (register) their marks will have their claims of trademark rights verified by Deloitte’s authentication and validation services and included in a database maintained by IBM, both under contract with ICANN.

Benefits of Recording in the Trademark Clearinghouse

The three main benefits of recordation for trademark owners are as follows: First, those owners will have the opportunity to reserve their mark-specific domain names for at least the first 30 days during the Sunrise Periods for the new gTLD (meaning the initial launch phase of each gTLD) before other members of the public may register domain names within that gTLD. In fact, only those with marks recorded in the Clearinghouse will be able to register during the Sunrise Period. Second, registrants will receive at least 30 days’ notice before each new gTLD goes live. Third, during the Trademark Claims Service period (at least the first 90 days after a new gTLD is available to the public), any third party attempting to register a domain in the new gTLD that exactly matches a recorded mark will be warned about the owner’s rights in the mark before registration is granted. Ideally, the registrant would abandon its domain name application once it learns of the owner’s claim to the mark. However, if the registrant proceeds with registering the domain name, the Clearinghouse will notify the mark owner of the registration but will not take any adverse action against the registrant on the owner’s behalf.

Limitations on Clearinghouse Recording

The registration process only allows for registration of and protection against new domain names that are identical to registered marks. The registration is not available for unregistered marks or marks that are the subject of a pending application. Due to the identical match requirements between marks and the domains, owners will have no Clearinghouse protection against commonly misspelled versions of the marks, plurals, shortened marks, etc. Since trademarks from many jurisdictions can coexist in the Clearinghouse, it is possible that conflicts will arise between legitimate mark owners with rights who have met the Clearinghouse recordation guidelines through different avenues.

Mechanics and Limitations of Registering

To record a mark with the Clearinghouse, owners must submit an application, the applicable fee and proof of use. Recordation is generally only available for (1) text-only marks registered on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Principal Register or with another national trademark office, (2) court-validated marks and (3) marks protected by statute or treaty. Not all trademarks are eligible. Trademarks containing a dot (such as amazon.com) and state-registered marks are not eligible. Special rules apply to symbols that are not recognized in domain names such as @ and &.

Timing

The Clearinghouse opened on March 26, 2013, and will remain open throughout the duration of the launch of the new gTLDs. This could be as early as May or June 2013 and will last until the last gTLD is launched (that could be as late as 2015 or thereafter). In order to take maximum advantage of the Clearinghouse and have opportunities to register their marks during the Sunrise Periods for the first gTLDs to be released later this spring, trademark owners should consider early registration. The first gTLDs to be released are those in non-Latin script. For example, the second gTLD set to launch is the gTLD Amazon is launching with the Japanese characters that mean .store.

Who Should Record Marks in the Trademark Clearinghouse

Trademark owners should determine if they wish to file to (1) protect their marks in any of the roughly 1,900 gTLDs or (2) defensively prevent any third party from registering any of its trademarks as a domain name with a new gTLD (e.g., .suck., .porn). However, if a trademark owner desires to file any domain name that corresponds to its mark during the Sunrise Period of any gTLD, the only way to be able to make that filing in the first days of the gTLD launch is to register its mark in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Owners must weigh the costs and benefits in determining whether to record/register marks in the Trademark Clearinghouse and whether to file to protect or block a domain name.

It is important to remember that recording in the Trademark Clearinghouse does not create or enhance legal rights. But it does give trademark owners the ability to monitor the rollout of the new gTLDs and to file offensive and defensive domain name applications. There are limits to the protection however. The Trademark Claims Service is only in effect for at least the first 90 or more day period established by the new gTLD registration. Thus it may be desirable to engage a commercial monitoring service after the Trademark Claims Service period has run.

ICANN’s plans for deploying the new gTLDs are ongoing and subject to change. Trademark owners will want to pay close attention to the ongoing news releases regarding the gTLDs and their Sunrise Periods and to timely file relevant sunrise applications as well as defensive domain name registrations. Please contact your trademark counsel to discuss the options available to you to protect your marks now that the gTLDs will soon launch.

For additional information, please contact Susan Rector at (614) 462-2338 and susan.rector@icemiller.com, or any member of Ice Miller’s Litigation and Intellectual Property Group.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.

On April 2, 2013, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a Report of Investigation clarifying that companies can use social media sites to communicate corporate information, in compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure (Regulation FD), as long as investors have been alerted about which social media will be used to disseminate such information. 

Regulation FD (17 CFR 243.100-243.103), according to the Report, was “adopted out of concern that issuers were selectively disclosing important nonpublic information, such as advance warning of earnings results, to securities analysts or selected institutional investors before making full disclosure of the same information to the general public.” (See also http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2010/33-9146.pdf). The Regulation requires public companies to either file a form 8-K with the SEC or to disseminate “material nonpublic information” regarding the company or its securities through a “method (or combination of methods) of disclosure that is reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information to the public.” Conservative practice has typically been for companies to file an 8-K as the primary – or at least contemporaneous – form of disclosure.

As explained by the Commission (and in this April 2, 2013 press release), the Report was prompted by a Division of Enforcement inquiry into whether Netflix violated Regulation FD when its CEO Reed Hastings posted to his personal Facebook page that Netflix’s monthly online viewing had, for the first time, exceeded one billion hours.  The information was not reported by Netflix through a form 8-K filing and was not included in a company press release issued later the same day. Netflix had neither used Hastings’ Facebook page for disseminating company information in the past, nor taken steps to alert investors that Hastings’ personal page might be used to communicate corporate information.  Netflix’s stock increased from $70.45 at the time of the post to $81.72 at the close of the next trading day.  The SEC did not initiate an enforcement action against Netflix or Hastings, but issued the Report to clarify how Regulation FD and the Commission’s 2008 Guidance on the Use of Company Web Sites (directed primarily at the use of corporate websites for the disclosure of material, non-public information) apply to disclosures made through social media channels. 

The Report ultimately clarified that “the principles outlined in the 2008 Guidance – and specifically the concept that the investing public should be alerted to the channels of distribution a company will use to disseminate material information – apply with equal force to corporate disclosures made through social media channels.”  The SEC emphasized that the steps taken to alert the market about which forms of communication a company intends to use for the dissemination of material, non-public information, including the social media channels that may be used and the types of information that may be disclosed through these channels, are critical to the fair and efficient disclosure of information.  Without such notice, the investing public would be forced to keep pace with a changing and expanding universe of potential disclosure channels, a virtually impossible task. 

The Report further identified a number of methods a company could use to provide the required notice to investors, for example by providing information about the social media channel in periodic reports, press releases, or on the company’s website

Ultimately, while highlighting that every case must be evaluated on its own facts, the SEC found that disclosure on the personal social media site of an individual corporate office, without advance notice to investors that the site might be used for this purpose, is unlikely to meet the requirements of Regulation FD.

For more information on corporate disclosure requirements or the use of social media in your business, contact info@theiceloop.com. 

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.

Last week, Google entered into a settlement agreement with more than thirty states’ attorneys general, acknowledging that its “Street View” cars violated computer users’ privacy by collecting more than just images of neighborhoods and buildings. Instead, the cars also managed to collect “passwords, emails and other personal information” from unencrypted wireless networks as they drove by. Google maintained that the data was never wanted, never used or looked at, and has reportedly agreed to destroy it.

While Google agreed to pay $7 million to settle the case, some have questioned the effectiveness of the penalty, noting that Google pulls in revenues in excess of $100 million each day. However, in addition to the settlement payment, Google also agreed to a series of commitments that the participating states hope will spark a broader commitment to privacy protection at Google and other companies as well. For example, within six months, Google must (among other things):

• Hold an annual “privacy week” event;

• Create and promote a You Tube video explaining how to encrypt data on wireless networks; and

• Commit to educating employees about privacy by providing privacy certification training for certain employees and “refresher” courses for its lawyers.

These changes, focused on changing corporate culture and practice, have given some privacy watchdogs hope that the settlement will have a more lasting effect than the (comparatively) minor fine likely will. With the states’ attorneys general’s complaints now behind it, Google can now look towards implementing the new privacy policies—and towards repairing consumers’ confidence that their private information will stay private.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.

Ice Miller is a sustaining parter of TechPoint and we are especially pleased to support and play a role in the ALHIT Initiative (Advancing Life Science & Health Care Information Technology).

The mission of ALHIT is to capitalize upon Indiana’s IT leadership and complement statewide life science efforts. This initiative is aimed at creating and growing more information technology companies that will provide innovative solutions for Indiana’s health and life sciences sector. ALHIT will identify opportunities for increased use of information technology in the health and life sciences sector. The initiative will also identify research in academia and in the marketplace that can be commercialized or “spun out” with venture capital and other funding sources.

ALHIT has three or four mini conferences throughout the year that bring together users and developers of Health IT products. These meetings help to keep everyone up to date on the advancements that are being made in this space, to demonstrate new products that are currently serving a need in the industry as well as giving a chance for others to speak up regarding new needs that are arising and being recognized by health care officials. 

The mini conference held on March 6, 2013 included iSalus Healthcare Co-Founders and Board Members Michael Hall and Dr. Chuck Dietzen as well as Indigo BioSystems Founder and President Rand Julian and CEO Raul Zavaleta. Other speakers have included:

            Management of Orchard Software:

                Rob Bush, President

                Jeffrey Kain, Executive Vice President

                Curt Johnson, CEO

            Lee Ann Blue, Chief Nursing Officer, Wishard Health Services

            Bill Tierney, Chief of Medicine, Wishard Eskinazi Health and President & CEO of           Regesntrief

            Andy VanZee, Statewide Health IT Director, State of Indiana

            Charlie Harp, CEO, Clinical Architecture LLC

For more information regarding ALHIT visit the TechPoint web site here. The next community meeting will be held on July 17, 2013.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.