BLOG

Blog

By Susan Burns 26 Oct, 2017
P.S. There has been a lot of discussion on social media about my post on reading fine print  when installing apps, specifically focused on the Grammarly app. Some people have responded with the interpretation that Grammarly can only use your content to correct your grammar and not for anything else.

I disagree. This is not a correct interpretation, in my opinion.

Even though that interpretation may be based on a provision in the TOS that states you keep ownership of
your content, they still have an unlimited, perpetual, royalty-free right to use it. I won’t repeat the prior
post, but do urge you to read it .

Others have suggested that Grammarly’s TOS are typical of SaaS (software as a service) agreements and,
somehow, that makes it okay. The TOS may be similar, but the products aren’t. Grammarly, in my
experience, crawls through everything you type. Everything.

The other argument proposed by someone is that because this is typical SaaS language, they don’t really
mean that they are going to use your content. Really? Then say so in a clearly-drafted, user-friendly
contract a/k/a TOS.

I have not heard of someone successfully arguing in court that even though they agreed to a license of
their product, they didn’t think the person was really going to use it … and therefore, they shouldn’t be
allowed to use it. If you know of such a case, send it my way.

Again, legal ethics prohibit me from using the service. That aside, I don’t choose to give Grammarly
access to everything I type.

As one person put it, “everything ever typed on the computer, so while it runs in the background, it
gathers password, credit card data, shopping habits, text conversations from Facebook, messenger
services, anything you do... recorded and stored.”

Finally, my posts are my opinion and my legal analysis. I am not your lawyer. And, I am not telling you
what to do.

One of my major focus points with clients is clarity. Fabulous decisions come from clarity. Make a
decision that’s right for you.

I love a great discussion! Keep the comments coming.

MSB
By Susan Burns 24 Oct, 2017

Recently I was engaged in a Facebook exchange among a group of successful business women. Someone asked for opinions on using Grammarly—an app that is marketed as “A FREE, ACCURATE GRAMMAR CHECKER BUILT FOR EVERYONE.”  

The comments started rolling in: “love it!” “best thing I have used in a long time.” “Cuts my writing time significantly.” And more like that.

I actually had installed the free app a few weeks before to give it a test run. I found it to be a nuisance because that little app was popping up and sticking its grammar-nose in every single thing I wrote. My emails. My blog posts. My word documents. That spelled danger to me, and I immediately deleted it.

My curiosity piqued, I checked the Terms of Service (which, admittedly, I should have done first). Here is what I found:

By uploading or entering any User Content, you give Grammarly (and those it works with) a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content (and, if you are an Authorized User, your Enterprise Subscriber’s User Content) in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services. (emphasis added)

Here's what you need to know:

  • Grammarly, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. They include in the definition of “Grammarly” not only the corporation, but also all of its subsidiaries AND other affiliates.
  • The definition of “Software” is “the software.
  • The definition of “Services” is … wait for it … “services.” 
  • And, although it is poorly drafted, it seems to be attempting to include any future Software and Services provided by Grammarly, which you recall also means any subsidiary or affiliate.

What does this mean for you?

It means that if you install Grammarly, whether it’s a free service or a paid service, you are specifically giving an unlimited perpetual license to your content to Grammarly and any company they affiliate with and any of their subsidiaries basically for any service they provide now and decide to use in the future.

That means that if you use Grammarly, instead of your own brain or a copy editor, you are no longer the exclusive owner of your content. That means they can republish, provide to third party affiliates, and use your data and materials any way they see fit.

The bottom line is that Grammarly has access to—and the unlimited, forever—right to use your content. Period.

And, once you install Grammarly, it is everywhere . It pops up in every document you create. Every. Single. One. If you don’t believe me, try it yourself.

Of course, lawyers and other professionals with a confidentiality responsibility to their clients are ethically prohibited from using Grammarly. (And, I hope they read the fine print.) But even if you don’t have an ethical responsibility to keep information confidential, do you really want to give up the right to your content?

Think about it! And next time, read the fine print. … or call me, and I’ll read it for you.


​*This post has been updated here .

By Susan Burns 28 Feb, 2017

The driverless car industry is hot and super-competitive. That’s a given. Here’s what’s not hot if you are Waymo, the self-driving car business that was spun out of Google’s parent company:

By Susan Burns 19 Feb, 2017

Recently, there was a trademark spat between Adidas and Tesla. The story piqued my interest because   the big players make mistakes that are instructive for small businesses (only on a grander scale)—and because it illustrates the importance of brand identity and underscores why it’s smart to register your mark.

In a nutshell, here’s what happened: Tesla filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register its Model 3, three-bar logo as a trademark. If the registration had been for the purpose of using the mark on a car, there would not have been a problem. BUT, Tesla registered to use its three-bar “E” on clothing. Adidas, a company known for rigorous policing of its brand identity, challenged Tesla’s right to register the mark as confusingly similar to the Adidas three-bar logo. Tesla withdrew its application. Adidas protected its three-bar brand identity.
By Susan Burns 28 Oct, 2016

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the largest regional trade agreement in history, between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim countries. Following in the footsteps of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Mexico, and Canada, the TPP expands upon this to establish new rules for global trade by eliminating 18,000 tariffs, promoting an open internet, disciplining state-owned enterprises, and establishing environmental and worker protection. Its aim is to increase Made-In-America exports, grow the US economy, support higher-paying US jobs, and strengthen the middle class.

 

You've probably heard references to the TPP in recent campaign coverage. It is the result of years of trade negotiations, and has been hailed as a hallmark victory for the Obama administration. However, the agreement is still in limbo, pending ratification by Congress--a delay that hardly comes as a surprise. And, both presidential candidates for the major parties have come out against the TPP. Given this, the future of the TPP is up in the air.

 

Supporters hope for a vote during the lame-duck session, but the TPP's passage could very likely depend on the next presidential administration. In the meantime, we are left to consider the implications of passage of this agreement, as well as its impact on NAFTA, a pre-existing trade agreement of a similar nature.

 

The TPP is a piece of legislation I have been closely following, and recently had the opportunity to moderate a panel entitled, "The Impact of TPP on NAFTA: Opportunity for Strengthening Ties -- Or Recipe for Disaster." Panel members included Aristeo Lopez of the Mexican Embassy, Laura Sierra of Alston & Bird, Nicholas Guzman of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, and Greg Kanargelidis of Blake, Cassels & Graydon.

 

The American Bar Association Section of International sponsored this event with the intention of presenting US, Mexican, and Canadian standpoints on the TPP and the impact of its passage on NAFTA. What followed was a thoughtful and informative discussion, and although the topic is highly complex, I thought I'd share some highlights with you.

 

Ms. Sierra explained some of the political context surrounding the TPP, including that the US has historically been pro-trade, and this is the first time since 1992 that trade has been a significant issue in presidential election year politics. US FTAs are modeled after NAFTA. The agreement eliminates a significant number of tariffs that would be beneficial to US businesses, but there are dissenting voices. Some of the concerns include employment issues, the manipulation of currencies by various countries, and opposition in specific industries such as auto, segments of agriculture and pharmaceuticals and biologics whose concerns were not addressed in the agreement. For example, intellectual property protection for biologics is not included in the agreement.

 

Mr. Lopez pointed out the benefits of NAFTA--growth in trade between Mexico and the US, especially--and explained that the TPP is intended to expand upon this growth, with attention to subjects that were treated less comprehensively in NAFTA. Another goal of TPP, in Mr. Lopez' view, is to strengthen Mexico's ties to NAFTA and other FTA partners, allowing Mexican goods to reach new markets.

 

Mr. Kanargelidis noted that the TPP is not intended to replace or override NAFTA, but that the two agreements can co-exist. He pointed out US, Mexican, and Canadian businesses can operate under the clauses of whichever agreement is most favorable to them in a given transaction. For example, the "de minimis" value threshold is 10% under TPP, and only 7% under NAFTA.

 

An audience member posed the question of whether TPP shipments will be exempt from US Merchandise Processing Fees (MPF) like NAFTA shipments are. Mr. Guzman explained that even though TPP does away with "ad valorem" fees, US Customs might find another way to collect MPF that is compliant with the agreement. He also described the TPP's "focused value" methodology for determining goods' origin, which might be more stringent than NAFTA methods.

 

Opponents to the TPP often cite concerns about the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision, which outlines the mechanism by which agreement disputes can be settled. Mr. Lopez explained that the TPP’s ISDS provisions are more transparent than those found in NAFTA.

 

At the conclusion of the panel, Ms. Sierra suggested that a full renegotiation of the TPP is unlikely, given that the agreement was difficult to reach in the first place, and that several countries have already ratified it. However, we might see some side letters that result in alterations to the text pertaining to certain issues. Panelists agreed that the TPP will pass. It’s a matter of time and final form.

 

The TPP has been negotiated between 12 countries who together form about 40% of GDP, and 1/3 of world trade. The agreement is of an unprecedented scope, and the implications of this agreement are huge. We will soon know if it can pass during the lame-duck session before the election, which is fast approaching!

 

To learn more about the TPP, visit this site . The full text of the agreement can be found here .

 

Sources:

Granville, Kevin. “The Trans-Pacific Partnership, Explained.” The New York Times. 20 August 2016. Web.

 “The Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Office of the United States Trade Representative. Executive Office of the President. 2016. Web.
By Susan Burns 08 Sep, 2016

In July, we reviewed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) that passed in Congress by a sweeping majority, and was signed into law by President Obama on May 11—a rare piece of legislation that was largely agreed upon on both sides of the aisle!

In this post, “Trade Secrets: Part Two,” I want to emphasize the importance of understanding what a trade secret is, regardless of whether it is under the DTSA or state law. Surprisingly, many businesses I work with rely heavily on trade secrets for their economic livelihood, and they don’t know it. Not knowing and not tending to that little gold mine of yours can mean a significant financial hit to your business in many ways, not the least of which is losing your competitive advantage.

So, what are the components of a trade secret, and how do you protect it? Think of it in threes: the three key elements of a trade secret and three steps to protect it.

By Susan Burns 30 Aug, 2016

In the final months of his tenure, President Obama has laid the groundwork for a special visa to encourage foreign entrepreneurs to start their companies in the United States. On August 26th, the Department of Homeland Security published the White House's proposed  International Entrepreneur Rule .

If enacted, this rule will grant temporary, two-year visas to foreign entrepreneurs on a case-by-case basis for start-up entities that would provide a "significant public benefit to the United States." This sentiment seems to fit perfectly with the emerging popularity of benefit corporations in the U.S.

To be eligible as a foreign entrepreneur, you must show that your startup has demonstrated potential for rapid growth and job creation. This can be shown, for example by having obtained financing from qualified U.S. investors, or obtaining awards or research grants from various government entities.

After the initial two-year visa, you may apply for an additional three-year visa if you can show that your company continues to provide significant benefit, including that is has grown and will continue to grow--measured by increases in capital investment, job creation, and revenue.  

This proposed rule is currently open for a public comment period of 45 days, and does not take effect until the final rule is published.

In his final State of the Union Address, President Obama noted that "America is every immigrant and entrepreneur from Boston to Austin to Silicon Valley, racing to shape a better world. That's who we are." We look forward to the future entrepreneurship that the International Entrepreneur Rule paves the way for.

For additional information, or to stay informed of developments, please be sure to sign up for my mailing list at the bottom of this web page.

Until next time,

Susan
By Susan Burns 02 Jul, 2016

It's a rare occasion that Congress actually agrees on something these days, but on April 27, 2016, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) passed in the House and Senate by a sweeping majority. The bill is designed to prevent actual and threatened theft of business trade secrets, by allowing trade secret owners to bring a claim for misappropriation in federal court, as long as "the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce." On May 11, President Obama signed the DTSA into law.

 

Prior to the passage of the DTSA, trade secret litigation used to be handled solely under state laws, many of which were modeled after the Uniform Trade Secrets Act of 1996 (UTSA). While this shared legislative model allowed for some uniformity, Congress wanted to address the differences that exist in specific statutory provisions and case law, from state to state. The DTSA does not pre-empt these state laws, but rather makes a new federal remedy available for trade secret owners bringing misappropriation claims.
By Susan Burns 22 Jun, 2016

With agreements being the cornerstone of most business arrangements, I am surprised by the number of business owners who continue to ignore the importance of putting it in writing--that’s right, a written contract. No matter how well-intentioned both parties are, operating on a handshake is far too risky for your business.

By Susan Burns 26 May, 2016

On May 23rd, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor published the final rule updating the overtime regulations for requiring employers to pay overtime to all eligible employees who work more than 40 hours per week.

President Barack Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum in 2014, instructing the Department of Labor to update the outdated regulations that affected white collar (exempt) workers regarding overtime and minimum wages. The purpose was to simplify and modernize the rules and make them easier to apply and understand.

With the new rules, announced on May 18th by President Obama and Labor Secretary Tom Perez, any worker who earns less than $47,476 must be paid overtime on any worked time over 40 hours per week.

Effective December 1, 2016, employers will have to:

-      Pay time-and-a-half for overtime

-      Raise workers’ salaries above the new threshold

-      Limit workers’ hours to 40 hours a week

-      A combination of the above

 

There are some exemptions to this law; for example certain sales, retail, or service employees who are paid on a commission basis; or agricultural workers who are paid a salary of at least $588 and whose employers gross $500,000 or more per year, or $477.75 per week for workers whose employers gross less than $500,000 per year.

Also, the minimum salary level will be increased every three years, beginning on January 1st, 2020.
More Posts
LATEST POSTS

Blog

By Susan Burns 26 Oct, 2017
P.S. There has been a lot of discussion on social media about my post on reading fine print  when installing apps, specifically focused on the Grammarly app. Some people have responded with the interpretation that Grammarly can only use your content to correct your grammar and not for anything else.

I disagree. This is not a correct interpretation, in my opinion.

Even though that interpretation may be based on a provision in the TOS that states you keep ownership of
your content, they still have an unlimited, perpetual, royalty-free right to use it. I won’t repeat the prior
post, but do urge you to read it .

Others have suggested that Grammarly’s TOS are typical of SaaS (software as a service) agreements and,
somehow, that makes it okay. The TOS may be similar, but the products aren’t. Grammarly, in my
experience, crawls through everything you type. Everything.

The other argument proposed by someone is that because this is typical SaaS language, they don’t really
mean that they are going to use your content. Really? Then say so in a clearly-drafted, user-friendly
contract a/k/a TOS.

I have not heard of someone successfully arguing in court that even though they agreed to a license of
their product, they didn’t think the person was really going to use it … and therefore, they shouldn’t be
allowed to use it. If you know of such a case, send it my way.

Again, legal ethics prohibit me from using the service. That aside, I don’t choose to give Grammarly
access to everything I type.

As one person put it, “everything ever typed on the computer, so while it runs in the background, it
gathers password, credit card data, shopping habits, text conversations from Facebook, messenger
services, anything you do... recorded and stored.”

Finally, my posts are my opinion and my legal analysis. I am not your lawyer. And, I am not telling you
what to do.

One of my major focus points with clients is clarity. Fabulous decisions come from clarity. Make a
decision that’s right for you.

I love a great discussion! Keep the comments coming.

MSB
By Susan Burns 24 Oct, 2017

Recently I was engaged in a Facebook exchange among a group of successful business women. Someone asked for opinions on using Grammarly—an app that is marketed as “A FREE, ACCURATE GRAMMAR CHECKER BUILT FOR EVERYONE.”  

The comments started rolling in: “love it!” “best thing I have used in a long time.” “Cuts my writing time significantly.” And more like that.

I actually had installed the free app a few weeks before to give it a test run. I found it to be a nuisance because that little app was popping up and sticking its grammar-nose in every single thing I wrote. My emails. My blog posts. My word documents. That spelled danger to me, and I immediately deleted it.

My curiosity piqued, I checked the Terms of Service (which, admittedly, I should have done first). Here is what I found:

By uploading or entering any User Content, you give Grammarly (and those it works with) a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content (and, if you are an Authorized User, your Enterprise Subscriber’s User Content) in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services. (emphasis added)

Here's what you need to know:

  • Grammarly, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. They include in the definition of “Grammarly” not only the corporation, but also all of its subsidiaries AND other affiliates.
  • The definition of “Software” is “the software.
  • The definition of “Services” is … wait for it … “services.” 
  • And, although it is poorly drafted, it seems to be attempting to include any future Software and Services provided by Grammarly, which you recall also means any subsidiary or affiliate.

What does this mean for you?

It means that if you install Grammarly, whether it’s a free service or a paid service, you are specifically giving an unlimited perpetual license to your content to Grammarly and any company they affiliate with and any of their subsidiaries basically for any service they provide now and decide to use in the future.

That means that if you use Grammarly, instead of your own brain or a copy editor, you are no longer the exclusive owner of your content. That means they can republish, provide to third party affiliates, and use your data and materials any way they see fit.

The bottom line is that Grammarly has access to—and the unlimited, forever—right to use your content. Period.

And, once you install Grammarly, it is everywhere . It pops up in every document you create. Every. Single. One. If you don’t believe me, try it yourself.

Of course, lawyers and other professionals with a confidentiality responsibility to their clients are ethically prohibited from using Grammarly. (And, I hope they read the fine print.) But even if you don’t have an ethical responsibility to keep information confidential, do you really want to give up the right to your content?

Think about it! And next time, read the fine print. … or call me, and I’ll read it for you.


​*This post has been updated here .

By Susan Burns 28 Feb, 2017

The driverless car industry is hot and super-competitive. That’s a given. Here’s what’s not hot if you are Waymo, the self-driving car business that was spun out of Google’s parent company:

By Susan Burns 19 Feb, 2017

Recently, there was a trademark spat between Adidas and Tesla. The story piqued my interest because   the big players make mistakes that are instructive for small businesses (only on a grander scale)—and because it illustrates the importance of brand identity and underscores why it’s smart to register your mark.

In a nutshell, here’s what happened: Tesla filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register its Model 3, three-bar logo as a trademark. If the registration had been for the purpose of using the mark on a car, there would not have been a problem. BUT, Tesla registered to use its three-bar “E” on clothing. Adidas, a company known for rigorous policing of its brand identity, challenged Tesla’s right to register the mark as confusingly similar to the Adidas three-bar logo. Tesla withdrew its application. Adidas protected its three-bar brand identity.
By Susan Burns 28 Oct, 2016

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the largest regional trade agreement in history, between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim countries. Following in the footsteps of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Mexico, and Canada, the TPP expands upon this to establish new rules for global trade by eliminating 18,000 tariffs, promoting an open internet, disciplining state-owned enterprises, and establishing environmental and worker protection. Its aim is to increase Made-In-America exports, grow the US economy, support higher-paying US jobs, and strengthen the middle class.

 

You've probably heard references to the TPP in recent campaign coverage. It is the result of years of trade negotiations, and has been hailed as a hallmark victory for the Obama administration. However, the agreement is still in limbo, pending ratification by Congress--a delay that hardly comes as a surprise. And, both presidential candidates for the major parties have come out against the TPP. Given this, the future of the TPP is up in the air.

 

Supporters hope for a vote during the lame-duck session, but the TPP's passage could very likely depend on the next presidential administration. In the meantime, we are left to consider the implications of passage of this agreement, as well as its impact on NAFTA, a pre-existing trade agreement of a similar nature.

 

The TPP is a piece of legislation I have been closely following, and recently had the opportunity to moderate a panel entitled, "The Impact of TPP on NAFTA: Opportunity for Strengthening Ties -- Or Recipe for Disaster." Panel members included Aristeo Lopez of the Mexican Embassy, Laura Sierra of Alston & Bird, Nicholas Guzman of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, and Greg Kanargelidis of Blake, Cassels & Graydon.

 

The American Bar Association Section of International sponsored this event with the intention of presenting US, Mexican, and Canadian standpoints on the TPP and the impact of its passage on NAFTA. What followed was a thoughtful and informative discussion, and although the topic is highly complex, I thought I'd share some highlights with you.

 

Ms. Sierra explained some of the political context surrounding the TPP, including that the US has historically been pro-trade, and this is the first time since 1992 that trade has been a significant issue in presidential election year politics. US FTAs are modeled after NAFTA. The agreement eliminates a significant number of tariffs that would be beneficial to US businesses, but there are dissenting voices. Some of the concerns include employment issues, the manipulation of currencies by various countries, and opposition in specific industries such as auto, segments of agriculture and pharmaceuticals and biologics whose concerns were not addressed in the agreement. For example, intellectual property protection for biologics is not included in the agreement.

 

Mr. Lopez pointed out the benefits of NAFTA--growth in trade between Mexico and the US, especially--and explained that the TPP is intended to expand upon this growth, with attention to subjects that were treated less comprehensively in NAFTA. Another goal of TPP, in Mr. Lopez' view, is to strengthen Mexico's ties to NAFTA and other FTA partners, allowing Mexican goods to reach new markets.

 

Mr. Kanargelidis noted that the TPP is not intended to replace or override NAFTA, but that the two agreements can co-exist. He pointed out US, Mexican, and Canadian businesses can operate under the clauses of whichever agreement is most favorable to them in a given transaction. For example, the "de minimis" value threshold is 10% under TPP, and only 7% under NAFTA.

 

An audience member posed the question of whether TPP shipments will be exempt from US Merchandise Processing Fees (MPF) like NAFTA shipments are. Mr. Guzman explained that even though TPP does away with "ad valorem" fees, US Customs might find another way to collect MPF that is compliant with the agreement. He also described the TPP's "focused value" methodology for determining goods' origin, which might be more stringent than NAFTA methods.

 

Opponents to the TPP often cite concerns about the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision, which outlines the mechanism by which agreement disputes can be settled. Mr. Lopez explained that the TPP’s ISDS provisions are more transparent than those found in NAFTA.

 

At the conclusion of the panel, Ms. Sierra suggested that a full renegotiation of the TPP is unlikely, given that the agreement was difficult to reach in the first place, and that several countries have already ratified it. However, we might see some side letters that result in alterations to the text pertaining to certain issues. Panelists agreed that the TPP will pass. It’s a matter of time and final form.

 

The TPP has been negotiated between 12 countries who together form about 40% of GDP, and 1/3 of world trade. The agreement is of an unprecedented scope, and the implications of this agreement are huge. We will soon know if it can pass during the lame-duck session before the election, which is fast approaching!

 

To learn more about the TPP, visit this site . The full text of the agreement can be found here .

 

Sources:

Granville, Kevin. “The Trans-Pacific Partnership, Explained.” The New York Times. 20 August 2016. Web.

 “The Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Office of the United States Trade Representative. Executive Office of the President. 2016. Web.
More Posts
Share by: