DSM-5: What it Means and Why Employers Need to Pay Attention

The American Psychiatric Association published a new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (aka “DSM-5”) in May 2013, which serves as guidelines to diagnose mental disorders.

The 2013 DSM-5 identifies a myriad of new mental diagnoses, including binge eating, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and “mild neurocognitive disorder,” which rather vaguely refers to a person who may struggle a bit to learn, remain attentive, or remember things, but does not have any other mental disorder and is able to live without assistance.

So how does DSM-5 affect businesses and, more specifically, employers?  Right now, it does not. But it may soon.

The Americans with Disabilities Act and the ADA Amendments Act prevent employers from discriminating against employees because of the employee’s disability and require the employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s disability. While DSM-5 does not directly affect the laws that comprise the ADA, it is anticipated that courts will use the expansive diagnoses identified in DSM-5 to broaden the definition of “disability” under the ADA and the ADA Amendments Act, although it will probably take several cases before it is clear how DSM-5 will affect the ADA and the ADA Amendments Act. The inevitable result will most likely be be an increase in lawsuits because of an employer’s failure to accommodate an employee’s disability.

Practically, this means that employers need to make sure that they have written guidelines and policies identifying how to apply for and accommodate employee’s requests for accommodation. Employers also need to make sure the employees handling the applications and accommodations and properly trained on how to do so.

For more information about the DSM-5 and its diagnoses, you can read the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders yourself at http://www.dsm5.org.  For assistance in protecting your business and ensuring that your employment policies comply with the law, talk to an employment lawyer at Briskin, Cross and Sanford.

Annual Registration Deadline for Georgia Corporations and LLCs – May 31st, 2014

In Georgia, the annual filing deadline for a business entity’s “Annual Registration” with the Secretary of State is usually April 1st; however, for the past two years the Secretary of State has extended the deadline to May 31st.

The filing fee required with the filing of the Annual Registration will be $50 in most instances (i.e., if there are no prior unpaid fees), or $30.00 for nonprofit corporations.

We have included Instructions (click link) that may help guide you through the process of using their new website, which you can access here: Georgia Secretary of State Filing System.

Please note that if our Firm, or any one of our attorney’s, is currently listed as your registered agent, you should update the registered agent name to BCS Corporate Services, Inc.  This is our Firm’s subsidiary that now exclusively handles these services. This also applies to companies that currently list Penn Law Firm, P.C.

If you have any questions about Annual Registrations or have trouble with the registration process, please feel free to call our office.

If we currently represent you and you would like to request that we file the Annual Registration for you, please contact Stacy Pettefer by email at spettefer@briskinlaw.com and confirm at the same time:

(i)  the principal office address of your entity;

(ii) the name and address of your registered agent (if it is not Briskin, Cross & Sanford, LLC); and

(iii) in the case of a corporation (rather than an LLC), the names and addresses of the President/CEO, Treasurer/CFO, and Secretary.

Does My Company Need to File an Annual Registration?

Most U.S. states require registered businesses to maintain current information with that state’s office of the Secretary of State.

In Georgia, all Corporations must typically file an Annual Registration within 90 days of the filing of their Articles of Incorporation (unless the Articles were filed between October 1 and December 31, in which case the Corporation is required to file its Annual Registration the following year by the April 1st deadline).

LLCs are not required to file an Annual Registration during their first calendar year.

In short, this year (2014):

  • All LLCs and Corporations formed in (or prior to) 2013 must file an Annual Registration by May 31, 2014 (for Corporations incorporated after October 1, 2013 or LLCs organized at any time during 2013, this will be the first Annual Registration).
  • LLCs formed on or after January 1, 2014, will not have to complete an Annual Registration until April 1, 2015.

Late registrations are subject to penalty fees of $25.00, and failure to file or keep registrations current can lead to the Secretary of State changing your business’s status to “Administratively Dissolved.” An “Administratively Dissolved” corporation or company may not transact business in Georgia or use the Georgia court system but may be reinstated within a certain time period upon certain conditions and the payment of a fee (you should contact us at once if your company has been administratively dissolved).

Once you have filed your Annual Registration, the Secretary of State will immediately consider your entity to be in “Active/Compliant” status; however, although your Annual Registration is considered paid the minute you file and pay online, the online record may not update immediately and may take a day or longer to reflect your “Active/Compliant” status.

You should also file an additional Annual Registration at any time during the year (and pay the $50.00 fee) to update the information on record if it is no longer accurate; however, you cannot pay for future years, and filing more than once in a year will not change your obligation to file the following year.

Who Files the Annual Registration?

Although we serve as registered agent for many of our clients, the filing of the Annual Registration is the responsibility of the members, managers, officers, or directors of the business. This ensures that the primary purpose of the Annual Registration is served: to accurately update your business address and officers’ names and addresses and to confirm or appoint a new registered agent for the service of process.

These records are public and should only be updated by an authorized person. They may also be used in determining, among other things, which jurisdiction your business will be subject to in a court of law.

Notice

The Secretary of State typically notifies businesses of the Annual Registration deadline by sending a postcard to the business address listed in its records. Please note that some companies imitate these notices. Any notice not from the Secretary of State is a solicitation. Please feel free to contact us if you are uncertain about a notice you have received.

Other States

If you are registered to do business in more than one state, you may need to file an Annual Registration in each state in which you are registered. Also, if you are transacting business in a state with which you are not officially registered, please contact one of our attorneys, and we can assist you with coming into compliance and protecting your interests in foreign states.

About Briskin, Cross & Sanford, LLC

Briskin, Cross & Sanford, LLC is a Business, Commercial, and Technology firm that has built a full-service business practice representing privately held companies and their executives, including many start-up businesses and technology firms across North Metro Atlanta and the surrounding areas.

The Business of Bitcoin: Taxable Property

As you may have now heard, on March 25, 2014, the IRS declared that, at least for now, Bitcoin will be taxed as property, rather than as a currency.  For those who view bitcoin as an investment vehicle similar to stocks, this ruling sets a clearer path with well known “rules of the game” for dealing with the tax implications of bitcoin.

But for those who are interested in bitcoin as a new currency, the path is now cluttered with administrative, legal, and financial complexities.

In order to better understand the implications of the IRS’ new stance, let’s take a quick look at the taxation of property. Generally speaking, if you purchase property and it appreciates in value, you must pay tax on the gain you realize above the original purchase price when you sell the property. This rule has traditionally applied to stocks and bonds in the same way that is applied to real estate and other physical property. Now this tax treatment has been extended to apply to bitcoin as well. Where this starts getting interesting is that bitcoin, like stock, fluctuates in value. An upside to the determination that bitcoin will be taxed as property is that gains on property held for more than one year are subject to long term capital gains tax rates, which max out at 23.8%, as opposed to the higher tax rates which apply to short term capital gains or ordinary income. Conversely, if the value of bitcoin depreciates, the loss realized on the sale of such a depreciated bitcoin when it is sold can be written off against ordinary income, up to $3,000 in loss per year. These rules on the sale and disposition of assets are tried and true and readily accessible (see IRS Publication 544). In that sense, the IRS’s decision may be seen as a desire to keep things simple. But what are the implications on the use of bitcoin to pay for everyday purchases?

A popular example circulating the Internet right now discusses the implications of purchasing a cup of coffee with bitcoin. If the purchaser buys a $2 cup of coffee with a bitcoin that he purchased for $1, the purchaser actually realizes $1 in capital gains. In case this concept seems a bit confusing, let’s briefly look at the basic elements of gain. The Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”), section 61 defines “gross income” as “all income from whatever source derived.” The Supreme Court has held that “income” exists whenever you experience an “accession to wealth”. See Comm’r v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431-33 (1955). In other words, whenever you are richer, even in some small way, you’ve realized gain. So in the coffee example above, in exchange for the dollar you invested in Bitcoin, you received one dollar worth of coffee, but you also received one additional dollar worth of coffee without paying anything additional. You are essentially one dollar richer than you were before, and so, you have taxable gain. Hmmm… a bit complex for buying coffee isn’t it? Actually, it’s even a little more complex still.

One of the great strengths of bitcoin is the highly developed means of tracking bitcoins. This built-in tracking system helps prevent counterfeit and similar fraud, prevents redundant use of the same bitcoin, and helps make bitcoin more reliable as a source of payment. However, because bitcoins can be tracked, and because their value fluctuates, a bitcoin you bought last year and a bitcoin you buy today can be tracked to determine when each is sold or exchanged for goods or services, and the tax implications for each bitcoin. The price you pay when you obtain any given bitcoin is referred to as your “basis” in that bitcoin, and the tax to which you are subject is based upon the gain you realize in excess of that basis in the bitcoin when the bitcoin is either sold or exchanged for a good or service.  This means that which bitcoin you use to make a purchase matters.

Let’s go back to our coffee example. As stated, if you get $2 worth of coffee for $1 in bitcoin, you have realized $1 worth of gain. Your basis in the bitcoin was $1 and you exchanged it for value of $2, thereby realizing $1 in gain. If, however, you buy $2 worth of coffee with bitcoin you bought for $2, your basis in the bitcoin is $2 and you have no gain. If you buy $2 worth of coffee with $3 worth of bitcoin, then you have realized a loss! So, as stated, which bitcoin you use to make a purchase matters. Imagine, for example, that you have to track all of the bills in your wallet by serial number and have to keep records to determine differing amounts of gain or loss on a transaction based on when those bills came into your possession, when they were spent, and the value of the thing you received in exchange for the bills when you spent them. This is essentially what will be required of bitcoin when they are used to purchase goods or services. Of course bitcoins are digital, so tracking them is not quite like tracking the serial numbers of your dollar bills, but nonetheless, you can see how this certainly complicates bitcoin as a payment source, at least for now.

From a business perspective, the IRS determination has a number of interesting implications. Take for example bitcoin “mining.” If you aren’t familiar, “mining” is the way in which bitcoins are generated. Bitcoin miners are essentially service providers who process transactions and secure the bitcoin network by solving complex mathematical problems, in exchange for which they collect new bitcoins. The process is competitive, however, and does not always result in the award of a new bitcoin. If the work does result in the award of a new bitcoin, the value of that bitcoin on the day it was mined is taxable income. Consider wages.  If bitcoins are rendered as wages in a business, they are subject to federal income tax withholding and payroll tax and must be reported on W-2s or 1099s. If a business accepts bitcoin as payment, it will be taxed on the fair market value of the bitcoin payment in US dollars on the date it was received as part of the business’s gross income.

For my two cents (or bitcoins?), the IRS’ determination appears to be a subtle, yet rather clever way of de-legitimizing bitcoin as a payment source by making it more complex to use in this way. I could be wrong, and maybe the IRS simply decided not to reinvent the wheel. In fairness, bitcoin does resemble a stock or publicly traded commodity in many ways, and there are tried and true guidelines for tax implications regarding the handling and taxation of those types of property. So maybe it’s a fair determination after all. “But currencies can fluctuate in value, too!” you say. Well, that’s true. So with approximately 9 million more bitcoins left to be mined until the Bitcoin supply reaches its predetermined maximum, there remains considerable room for controversy and potential changes of position by the IRS and other governmental entities. The one thing we know for certain at this point is that, for better or worse, at least for now bitcoin is taxable as property… and if you buy a $2 cup of coffee for a bitcoin you bought for $1, you may well find that you owe Uncle Sam capital gains tax on that extra dollar at the end of the year.

Behind closed doors: good intentions or good old boys’ club?

The story goes that the Texas law firm of Scheef & Stone at one point enforced a policy that prohibited males and females from being alone together both in the workplace and outside the workplace.

While it is certainly conceivable that such a policy might have represented the firm’s (albeit misguided) attempt to avoid situations where sexual harassment might arise, according to the complaint filed against the firm by one of its female partners, the unwanted effect of this policy was actually to build a segregated workplace that harmed the firm’s female employees rather than protected them.

The complaint filed against Scheef & Stone alleges that this policy effectively created a workplace culture where male attorneys worked, and even socialized, primarily if not exclusively, with other male attorneys, shutting out female lawyers and hindering their ability to develop professional relationships within the firm.  The result, it was alleged, was greater opportunity for male rather than female attorneys and ultimately lower pay for the the women lawyers in the firm.  Scheef & Stone denied the allegations, including implementing a “closed doors” policy, claiming that the plaintiff simply disagreed with the firm’s business decisions, which it said were not based on gender.

While Georgia employers with similar (formal or informal) policies may think that they can breathe a small sigh of relief in that the complaint against Scheef & Stone was filed under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act and not a state or federal law available to Georgia plaintiffs, the issues raised by the case are certainly relevant to business in all states, including Georgia. Any employer with fifteen (15) or more employees is subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits any form of discrimination based on an employee’s sex, and it is hardly a stretch of the imagination to see the potential of a Title VII lawsuit arising out of a policy similar to the one allegedly used by Scheef & Stone.

The bottom line is that any policy–from an official firm rule to an informal management policy–that seeks to treat one employee differently from another because of her or his race, sex, age, religion, national origin, or disability, even those policies that a company or manager may allegedly seek to put in place for the protection of the employee, should be examined very carefully with an employment lawyer, as there is a good chance that such actions will not only be perceived differently by the employee receiving the “protection,” but they may well also be illegal under a range of state and federal employment laws.  The employment lawyers at Briskin, Cross & Sanford are always happy to discuss your employment practices and help you develop policies and procedures that comply with both state and federal law.

Fiserv brings 2,000+ jobs to Alpharetta, Technology City of the South

The City of Alpharetta announced today that Fiserv, Inc., multi-billion dollar global provider of technology solutions, has selected a new location in Alpharetta for its Atlanta-area operations.

According to Governor Nathan Deal’s announcement, “Fiserv has had a presence in Georgia for more than two decades and has become one of the largest technology employers in our state.”

“Fiserv is bringing nearly 2,000 existing jobs to Alpharetta, and the company has committed to hire a significant number of additional associates as they establish a presence in our community,” said Alpharetta Mayor David Belle Isle. “As a leading location for technology-focused businesses, we are confident that Alpharetta will be just the right fit for Fiserv, and we welcome the company and their area associates to our city.”

According to the Atlanta Business Chronicle’s TechFlash, Fiserv has more than 16,000 clients worldwide in the financial services, investment management, and retail sectors, as well as in government agencies and other areas.  The company reported revenues of $4.55 billion last year.

Atheists, Native American Spiritualism, and Vegans: or “What do you mean I am fired for not getting a flu shot?”

A) atheism;  B) Native American spiritualism;  C) white supremacy;  D) veganism.

Which is the odd one out?

SAT question?  LSAT maybe?  Perhaps a round of Sesame Street’s beloved game “Which One of These Things is Not Like the Other; Which One of These Things Does Not Belong?”

But don’t be fooled.

The more accurate question would ask, “What do atheism, Native American spiritualism, white supremacy, and veganism have in common?”  Surprisingly, the answer may be that all four have been invoked as religions whose subscribers are protected from discrimination under Title VII.

Yes, you read that correctly. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on several recognized classes, including religion, and some federal courts have recognized groups of white supremacists as a religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Ironic, isn’t it?  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has also decided that Native American spiritualism, atheism, and agnosticism are religions protected from discrimination under Title VII.  And since this is the time of year we are all being asked to get out flu shots, it is worth remembering that an Ohio federal court has found it is “plausible” for veganism (“Veganism”?) to qualify as a religion under Title VII.

Run that past me again?

This story started in 2010, when a customer service representative in a hospital was fired for refusing the flu vaccine the hospital required for all of its employees. The former employee claimed her termination discriminated against her based on her religion because the use of animal products in creating and manufacturing vaccines violated her beliefs as a vegan.

Not surprisingly, the hospital immediately asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, but the court declined to do so since it was unwilling to say that veganism is not a religion.  Employers and employees alike should note, however, that the former employee’s argument that her veganism was a moral and ethical belief system and therefore constituted a protected religion under Title VII relied, at least in part, on ties between veganism and Judeo-Christian principles.  This appears to have assisted in swaying the court, as the court cited the former employee’s references to Bible passages shunning the use of animals for food and essay titled “The Biblical Basis of Veganism.”

The jury may still be out on whether employers must recognize and reasonably accommodate an employee’s vegan lifestyle as that employee’s religion; but, at a minimum, this case serves as an important reminder of Title VII’s broad definition of “religion.”  Employers should ensure their policies require all personnel to exercise extreme caution before making decisions as to the legitimacy of an employee’s religious beliefs, especially at this time of the year.

What time of year, you ask?  Christmas… no.  Chanukah… no.  Flu season!

Negligent hiring and/or retention of employees: urban legend or state law?

In 2009, a Wachovia (now Wells Fargo) teller searched through the bank’s customer information until she found a customer with a name similar to her husband’s name. The Wachovia teller than used the customer’s identity and credit to spend approximately $600,000.00 on vehicles, jewelry, and a trailer for her husband’s business.

The customer, a Georgia firefighter and emergency technician, did not take the teller’s actions lying down. Instead, he filed suit against Wells Fargo, alleging that the bank was liable for the actions of the teller, its employee. The lawsuit is now before the Georgia Supreme Court, which must decide whether the customer has a claim against Wells Fargo based on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which provides for the regulation and protection of consumer information.

While the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act may not apply to every Georgia employer, the concept that a Georgia employer can be liable for the actions of its employees does apply to all employers. Georgia law requires employers to exercise ordinary care in selecting employees, and likewise requires employers not to retain employees the employers realize are “incompetent.” An employer will be liable for negligent hiring or retention if the employer either knew, or by exercising ordinary care should have known, that the employee was incompetent and that the employee’s incompetency hurt the plaintiff during the employee’s working hours.

For example, if an employer hires or retains an employee that employer knows is a habitual drunk driver, and if that individual becomes drunk and injurs another while driving the employer’s delivery truck, the employer will quite likely be held liable.  Of course, if the individual got drunk and injured another while driving the his or her personal vehicle on his or her own time, then the employer would not be liable.

The bottom line: because employers may be held liable for the actions of their employees during working hours, it is vitally important for employers to have a hiring and review procedure in place that allows the employer, while complying with state and federal anti-discrimination law, to ensure that it is hiring dependable, trustworthy employees.

The Series LLC

There are still a number of old postings knocking around the internet that say that the LLC is a new and untested form of business entity.  Not so any more.  The LLC has been around in the US for more than thirty-five years and is the entity of choice today for many if not most small businesses and many larger ones, too.

As the law of corporations and business entities evolves, however, there are a number of new types of LLC that have that slightly raw, cutting-edge flavor of opportunity, salted with risk, that the LLC itself had back in those heady frontier days of the late nineteen seventies.  One such entity is the Series LLC.

Let’s think for a moment about why we have an LLC or corporation in the first place.  Business risks should always be segregated from personal assets, but there are often good reasons for segregating distinct business enterprises or major business assets from one another, too.  From a liability standpoint, ideally, if you owned 10 rental properties, you may wish to own each in a separate LLC, placing each into a separate “risk basket.”

Some entrepreneurs in this position begin to consider a holding company structure, a tried and true mechanism for separating risk and still retaining certain tax advantages of a single entity.  Still, this can become administratively inconvenient, not to mention very costly, when administrative costs and government fees must be paid for each LLC.

One solution, originating from the insurance industry and investment trust business (where investment trusts often own multiple portfolios in protected cells within a single entity such that the investment liabilities of one cell do not spill over and involve the holdings in other cells) is to provide for a single, broad, limited liability company structure that contains separate “risk baskets,” each operating like a distinct entity in itself, to hold each of these assets.  Each of these cells or baskets is called a “series.”

Certainly, not all states are yet able to organize Series LLCs; however, of the nine states that currently permit the formation of some type of Series LLC (DE, IL, IO, NE, OK, TN, TX, UT, and WI), Delaware and Nevada are among the leaders in establishing the basis for stability and longevity that the form will require if it is to become as widespread in years to come as the plain vanilla LLC is today.  Of course, just because you are doing business in Georgia, for example, this does not mean that your LLC–or your Series LLC–cannot be organized in, say, Nevada or Delaware.

At its core, then, the Series LLC principle provides a mechanism for the creation of separate series within an LLC such that the debts and other liabilities with respect to each series are enforceable against that series alone.  While the articles of organization indicate that the LLC is a Series LLC, in Nevada and Delaware, only the LLC operating agreement is required to detail the actual number of series and the assets each owns.  The operating agreement, of course, is not a public document but is simply maintained with the corporate records.  The assets of each series are contained in a schedule, and the schedule is amended each time a property is bought, sold or transferred.

The Delaware and Nevada LLC Acts further allow the LLC operating agreement to provide different members and managers for each series (for example, Series A may be wholly owned by the principal member of the LLC, Series B may be a partnership with the LLC member and an equity investor, etc.).  If the various series within an LLC do have different members or different membership rights, each series may be treated as a separate LLC for tax purposes (maintaining flexibility, but perhaps eliminating some of the administrative advantage of the series LLC in terms of its pass-through taxation potential).

Though each series must have its own “business purpose,” it is enough for this that each series owns a separate property.  To maintain the separation of liability, however, it is vital that each series is treated for all intents and purposes almost as if it were a separate company.  Best practice suggests that this means keeping a unique set of books and records for each series, a separate bank account, and taking care to enter into contracts in the name of the series, not the LLC (even though the LLC holds title to the property).

As noted above, the series LLC is a relatively new concept, and there a number of risks associated with its use.  This is just one reason why this is an entity choice that should be made in consolation with a business attorney and not by clicking through a series of online forms at Legal Wizz, or the do-it-yourself, online, business incorporation company-of-the-month.  Nine states permit the formation of such an entity, and while many other states (including Georgia) may have discussed doing so, the law in those states which may be considering permitting organization of series LLCs is still in various stages of development.  A separate question is whether a state (like Georgia) that does not yet permit the organization of series LLCs will respect that structure when a series LLC organized properly in an other state does business in a state that has not yet come onboard with the concept, a thorny issue that brings the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution into dialogue with state law.   If a court were not to accept the validity of the structure, a judgment against one series might be applied across the various series, dissolving the barrier conceived to protect such assets in the first place.

Similarly, while the IRS stated in a private letter ruling as far back as 2008 that the Federal tax classification (i.e., disregarded entity or partnership or taxable association) is determined for each series independently, and proposed Treasury Regulations should soon make this absolutely clear, individual states may choose not to respect this classification for state tax purposes, which may lead to unforeseen difficulties if states attempt to tax all the income across a multi-state series instead of just the income attributable to the series operating in that state.

No company, and certainly not a series LLC, should be organized and maintained by someone without the training and knowledge to do so.  It may be true that sometimes with great risk comes great reward, but anyone contemplating a business venture of any sort should nonetheless talk it over with an attorney accustomed to corporate structures, both simple and complex.  Not to do so is to invite the likelihood that with a particular great risk comes… well, just great risk.  The business lawyers at Briskin, Cross & Sanford are always ready to help companies and entrepreneurs weigh their options as they form or grow their business.

How can we help you?

The inevitably unclear application of the inevitable disclosure doctrine

By now, word is out that Georgia non-compete or non-solicitation agreements are easier for employers to enforce as a result of new laws passed by the state legislature that apply to all contracts entered into after May 11, 2011.

On May 6, 2013, however, the Georgia Supreme Court took the opportunity to restrict the enforcement of non-competition agreements that the parties never actually entered.

What?  Run that past me again…

Michael Holton worked as the vice president and chief operating officer of Physician Oncology Services, LP (“Physician Oncology”) from August 2009 through October 2011. In November 2011, Holton accepted employment with a direct competitor of Physician Oncology. Perhaps not surprisingly, a lawsuit ensued, with Physician Oncology seeking to prevent Holton from working for this or any other competitor.

What is surprising, in addition to claims for breach of a non-competition agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets, is a claim made by Physician Oncology on an “inevitable disclosure” theory, claiming that Holton “would inevitably misappropriate, disclose, and misuse” Physician Oncology’s trade secrets and other confidential information.

The inevitable disclosure doctrine allows a plaintiff to prove a claim of trade secret misappropriation by showing that the defendant’s new employment will inevitably lead the defendant to rely on the plaintiff’s trade secrets. The danger of the inevitable disclosure doctrine, of course, is that it imposes a non-competition covenant where one otherwise does not exist. It may also extend the time of a covenant not to compete beyond the time identified by the actual non-competition covenant originally agreed between the parties as trade secrets and certain confidential information may be protected indefinitely whereas restrictive covenants usually have a time limit.

Georgia law unquestionably recognizes claims of both actual and threatened misappropriation of trade secrets, but does it recognize claims for the “inevitable disclosure” of trade secrets? The answer the Georgia Supreme Court provided is… not in all circumstances.

In Michael Holton’s case, the Court clearly established that Georgia does not allow independent claims under the inevitable disclosure doctrine that would allow a Georgia court to prevent an employee from working for another employer or from disclosing a trade secret. What the court did not address is whether the inevitable disclosure doctrine may be applied under Georgia law to support a claim for the threatened misappropriation of trade secrets.

In other words, for those seeking clarity, the good news is that the Georgia Supreme Court restricted the applicability of the inevitable disclosure doctrine in certain circumstances; the bad news is that the Georgia Supreme Court did not clearly state under what circumstances the doctrine does apply under Georgia law.

The inevitable result is that inevitable disclosure doctrine claims will likely continue to arise until the Georgia Supreme Court has the opportunity to revisit the matter and, hopefully, clear up the applicability this cause of action under Georgia law… or at least add a few more puzzle pieces to the overall picture.

Google’s terms more complex than Beowulf

I have commented before on Mark Anderson‘s common-sense observations and wry tone. Here, true to form, he notes the functional unreadability for many users of Google’s Terms and Conditions and suggests that they should be written more like Fifty Shades of Grey (well… that’s not quite what he says).

Of course, we know (possibly from guilty experience) that most readers don’t read the terms and conditions (“T&C”) or terms of service (“TOS”) before clicking the “download” or “accept” button anyway, although it is not clear whether we don’t read them because they are difficult or whether they have evolved to become difficult and obtuse because most people don’t bother to read them and therefore few sales are lost because the terms are inaccessible or unacceptably harsh.

One software vendor that offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who read the fine print in its license agreement and hid the offer in plain site in its terms of service did not receive a response claiming the prize for four months and more than three thousand downloads.  Another inserted a term providing that if a user did not register the downloaded evaluation copy of its software properly, “a leather-winged demon of the night will tear itself, shrieking blood and fury, from the endless caverns of the nether world, hurl itself into the darkness with a thirst for blood on its slavering fangs and search the very threads of time for the throbbing of your heartbeat.

For contract attorneys and IP lawyers drafting terms and conditions, end-user license agreements (“EULA”), and click-wrap agreements in general, especially those designed for use by ordinary online consumers, the most difficult part of the task is often to provide both maximum legal coverage and maximum clarity at the same time.

This should never be an excuse, of course, for not striving for that elusive blend of clarity and coverage. A clear contract will always be more enforceable, and the best business practice is rarely to “let the buyer beware” and blame the reader for not getting assistance if any of the terms he or she is invited to “click here to accept” are difficult to understand.

Of course another way to get readers to actually pay attention to the terms of service, is to have a celebrity perform a dramatic rendition of them.  Mr. Anderson has previously drawn our attention to the hilarious reading of Apple’s EULA by Richard Dryfus (click here to listen to the Dryfus reading, and be sure to click to listen to the “Effective until” segment).

If you are struggling with your own (or someone else’s) T&C, TOS, EULA or Click-Wrap Agreement–and you don’t have ready access to a celebrity like Richard Dryfus to read it for you–the contract and intellectual property attorneys at Briskin, Cross and Sanford will be more than happy to assist.

IP Draughts

beowulfIP Draughts spluttered over his porridge this morning, while reading an item in his newspaper.  According to researchers at the University of Nottingham, if you want to understand Google’s internet user agreement you need a higher level of literacy than you need to understand Beowulf, the Anglo-Saxon poem that was written about 1000 years ago.  Non-firewalled news report here.

The research team has developed some software that will rate the readability of website text. Called Literatin, it has been developed to work best with Google Chrome.  There is an amusing irony here: you have to accept the Google terms before you can use the software!  It seems that there is also a version that uses Firefox.  See here to download either version.  IP Draughts wonders whether it uses any of the same methodology as the Bla-Bla Meter, which we reported on here.

Ms Ewa Luger (@ew_luger)…

View original post 187 more words