I love social media stories. In the afternoon session on social media policies in the workplace, I got to hear a few that I had not heard before. They all start out like bad jokes… have you heard the one about three teenage girls who use a sink at KFC like a hot tub? Have you heard the one about the airline pilots? I am just waiting for the day when one of these stories starts out have you heard the one about the lawyer… (although, while at the conference, I was forwarded a link regarding a case in MA which does have social media aspects and involves an attorney and a law school student/aspiring model… which was fitting).
Several of the issues that were raised were that posting trade secrets in blogs can have dire consequences for a company (read: make the trade secret not so secret) and the FTC rules regarding endorsements. For those attorneys that work in social media, these points probably were more confirmation of already existing knowledge. However, for those who are not well versed in social media and/or online advertising law, it was probably eye-opening that employees promoting their employer’s products can cause big issues for the company.
Although there were many dangers highlighted, both attorneys on the panel mentioned the benefits of social media use by employees too. Client interaction, advertising, and addressing negative comments by foes were just a few ways employees could help a company through the use of social media.
I agree with the panel that social media, in some form, is here to stay. Trying to stop employees from using it is an uphill battle that will probably be lost. However, companies need to be smart about it and make sure they have the correct policies in place to deal with social media, and to be honest, overall communications whether online or offline.
The morning sessions were quite interesting with the first being on the joint development of IP and the second on cloud computing. The morning finished with lunch and an update on the changes in the USPTO by Deputy USPTO Director Sharon Barner.
The first session on joint development of IP focused mainly on when one company is making something for another company and not joint ventures. The most interesting fact presented was that 50% of all alliances fail which led to the need for attorneys to carefully make sure that they review terms in contracts regarding vendor lock-ins, IP portability, IP enforcement, IP infringement, and issues that might arise after the joint development agreement terminates.
The second session was on cloud computing. This has been a topic that I’ve been interested in for personal reasons as it has been discussed by attorneys for their use on several forums I am on. It was interesting hearing the issues that were brought up by the presenter. However, I am still not convinced that for professions like attorneys and doctors were confidentiality is such a big issue that cloud computing will work. I also questioned how useful it was to spend large amounts of time reviewing agreements for smaller clients when in most cases, companies will rarely negotiate them (i.e. asking Google to negotiate the Google Apps agreement for a two person company is very unlikely). (Although I am not saying you shouldn’t review them, I think clients need to know what they are getting into, just spending large amounts of time on them does not seem cost effective.)
The morning sessions ended with a presentation by Deputy USPTO Director Sharon Barner. I must say that my experience with the USPTO is limited as I only have filed trademarks and not patents with them. I have always found the turn-around time on trademarks to be reasonable so the discussion of the amount of time it takes to turn around patents was something that I had not been privy too. I did find it interesting that she wanted feedback from the crowd and those that work with the PTO. However, what I will find more interesting is polling the crowd next year to see if any changes are actually made.
