Kyle Brookover

Summarily - A Podcast for Busy Lawyers is the go-to legal podcast for Florida attorneys. Four accomplished lawyers with more than 60 years' combined experience deliver caselaw updates, practice tips, free CLE courses, and insightful legal analysis. Don't miss an episode. Search Summarily wherever you get your podcasts. Lindsey Lawton Jennifer Watson Opiola Joni Mosely #legalpodcast #floridalawyers #litigation #appellatelaw

74

3 Comments

Is it necessary to consult a licensed attorney regarding AI governance? The answer is yes. Without consulting an attorney, you could be wasting your financial resources and efforts, or even worse, violating applicable laws. AI governance refers to the frameworks, policies, and practices that guide the development, deployment, and use of AI systems in a responsible, ethical, and lawful manner. Here’s how a licensed attorney specializing in AI can help you: a. Understanding and Navigating Legal Compliance: The legal landscape around AI is evolving rapidly, with increasing lawsuits and various entities creating laws and taking enforcement actions. Attorneys can advise companies on these regulations and ensure their AI development and deployment comply with them to avoid any potential government enforcement actions and class action lawsuits. b. Advising on Compliance with Data Privacy Laws: Attorneys can provide crucial guidance on complying with data privacy laws, ensuring that organizations collect, process, and store personal data in accordance with legal requirements. This includes advising on the implementation of data protection measures and conducting privacy impact assessments to identify and mitigate risks. c. Transparency and Accountability: Regulatory authorities often require companies to provide clear and transparent explanations for their actions and decisions related to using AI to meet compliance requirements. Failure to provide such explanations can lead to hefty fines and reputational damage. Lawyers can help organizations develop frameworks for explaining how AI systems arrive at decisions and ensure clear lines of accountability. d. Data and Algorithmic Oversight: A key aspect of AI governance is ensuring data fairness and mitigating algorithmic bias. Lawyers can help organizations assess their data for potential biases and develop strategies to address them. e. Contract and Vendor Management: Attorneys play a vital role in negotiating and drafting agreements with AI vendors that establish clear expectations regarding data ownership, liability, and risk distribution. f. Policy Establishment: Lawyers can help establish comprehensive AI governance policies that align with regulatory requirements and industry best practices, ensuring consistent and compliant AI usage across the organization. I specialize in negotiating enterprise AI agreements, crafting IP and data privacy strategies, establishing robust AI and data governance frameworks, and ensuring compliance with complex regulations, including data privacy laws. My website is temporarily down due to a domain transfer. Please DM me if you have any legal needs in the meantime. @LK LAW FIRM

6

The slides of my paper-in-progress I presented as part of the “Trademark Law” panel at the 8th Annual Texas A&M University School of Law IP Scholars Roundtable (and that I presented a previous version of at the 50th Annual Faulkner and Yoknapatawpha Conference ("Anniversaries")): Professor Timothy T. Hsieh, Oklahoma City University School of Law, “‘The Past Is Never Dead, It’s Not Even Trademark or Copyright’: William Faulkner and the Elusive Boundary Between Intellectual Property Forms No One Talks About” - I talk about the influence of my Eleventh Grade AP English Teacher Judy Greer where I read Faulkner's The Sound & The Fury (which changed my life); the work on copymarks - where copyrighted works are being used as trademarks - by (and also the term coined by) Professor Stacey Lantagne (who interestingly used to be at Ole Miss Law; Ole Miss and Oxford, MS always being closely associated with Faulkner); a universal framework for all forms of IP I cover in my IP class at OCU Law; the two cases filed by the Estate of William Faulkner in Mississippi federal courts, Faulkner Literary Rights LLC v Northrop Grumman. Corporation and the Washington Post Company, No 3:12-cv-732-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss. Oct 26, 2012) and Faulkner Literary Rights LLC v Northrop Grumman Corporation and the Washington Post Company, No 3:12-cv-732-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss. Oct 26, 2012); and my proposal for a new hybrid form where TMs are used as copyrights called a "markright". The abstract is up on SSRN at https://lnkd.in/guWQBS57 and the full paper is forthcoming soon. Enjoy!

19

1 Comment

What's one of the keys to major raises and valuations? Prioritizing IP. Early. That means prioritizing and securing your IP. Yes, every startup has IP. Not all IP is handled the same way. Some is of critical importance to your startup. This is the stuff your competitiors would want to copy. That’s the stuff you need to protect. -------------------------------------- I help growing startups build strategic IP portfolios. Follow for more #TechLawMadeEasy with #innovation, #startup, and #entrepreneurship stories & tips!

9

2 Comments

How AI is Changing the Game for Litigators 📂💡 AI is reshaping how litigators handle their files, from video depositions to transcripts to legal research. Here’s a quick look at how it's making a difference: 🎥 Video Analysis Made Easy: AI tools can sift through hours of deposition footage to highlight crucial moments, saving time and uncovering insights that might be missed in a manual review. 📜 Smarter Transcript Management: AI can spot inconsistencies and patterns in transcripts, providing deeper insights into witness testimonies. 🔍 Enhanced Legal Research (Caution, for Now!): AI can also help with legal research. But attorneys should continue to closely vet the answers provided. A recent Stanford study compared AI tools from LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters. While Lexis+ AI got 65% of answers right, Westlaw’s AI was accurate only 42% of the time and had a higher rate of ‘hallucinations’—plausible but incorrect info. The takeaway? AI can be incredibly helpful, but it’s crucial to verify its outputs and stay cautious about relying on them entirely. Look for AI tools that not only summarize text, but can cite to sources that you can review. How are you using AI in your practice? Read more at the link below, a great article by Robert Ambrogi.

20

6 Comments

BREAKING NEWS: Latest status report on copyright lawsuits v AI companies. 📰 4 new lawsuits = 24 total lawsuits May 8 hybrid hearing on MTD in Andersen v Stability AI: you can attend via Zoom 🏎️ Link in article below 👇🏽 Judge Tigar cancels hearing on MTD in Doe 1 v Microsoft. Who does that favor?

57

4 Comments

Interesting legal developments for big #tech. First, Meta/Facebook settled a Texas lawsuit accusing it of keeping Texas citizens' biometric data. Specifically, Facebook was accused of scraping "facial geometry" from pictures and videos uploaded to Facebook, whether or not the user was on Facebook. So, if you uploaded grandma's photo, and grandma mercifully didn't have a Facebook account, the Petition said Facebook took that info. According to the AG, Texas used this data to train its AI and otherwise help its business. The suit was brought by the Texas Attorney General (with help from two well-connected Texas firms) under two Texas statutes--the #DTPA (Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act) and Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Data Identified Act (#CUBI). DTPA provides treble damages and attorneys fees and can be enforced by a private litigant or the AG. CUBI provides up to a $25,000 fine per violation and can only be enforced by the AG's office. Meta settled for $1.4 billion. From personal experience, when private firms are involved, they usually work on a contingency basis on behalf of the AG. The last time I pitched to an AG (not Texas), the fee was 25% of the settlement. So, these two firms may have come away with a lot of money for working on this case. In a blow to Amazon, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission determined that Amazon is responsible for recalling unsafe products sold through Amazon.com by third parties. The Order only applies to third-party products that are in Amazon's "Fulfilled by Amazon" program. Amazon isn't responsible for testing the products; it must inform consumers of hazards and issue refunds to encourage the destruction or removal of the offending products. Amazon says it will appeal. This will be a big test of the Post-#Chevron administrative law. Article here: https://lnkd.in/gjzDKTih

14

📢 Breaking News: Exactech Files for Bankruptcy Amid Litigation Over Defective Devices Exactech filed for bankruptcy yesterday, looking to sell its assets through a "stalking horse" bidder strategy. While this isn't a "Texas Two-Step," it certainly bears an uncanny resemblance to one. The company claims it's facing financial distress due to ongoing litigation – yet, in their press release, they simultaneously boast "strong performance and positive growth in 2024." CEO remarked “Our team has delivered strong performance and positive growth in 2024, and we are confident in the trajectory of our business.” It makes one wonder... Is this truly a financial hardship, or a another strategic move to dodge accountability for the injuries they caused with their defective devices? The timing of this bankruptcy seems all too convenient. The Third Circuit, where the bankruptcy case is filed, enforces a stricter "bad faith" test for bankruptcy, especially in cases that appear to be motivated by a desire to evade or delay litigation. Today is the first hearing for this bankruptcy. Will the judge see through this? As Shakespeare aptly put it, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” #Law #Legal #Lawyer #ConsumerProtection #Bankruptcy

5

"Meta Reaches $1.4 Billion Settlement in Texas Privacy Lawsuit" Meta has reached a $1.4 billion settlement with the state of Texas in a privacy lawsuit. This settlement relates to allegations that the tech giant used biometric data of users without their permission. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton described this as the largest settlement secured by a single state. In a statement, Paxton emphasized that this historic settlement demonstrates the state's commitment to holding the world's biggest technology companies accountable for violating privacy rights. Meta also released a statement expressing their interest in resolving this matter and their anticipation of potential future business investments in Texas, including the development of data centers. This settlement is significant as it marks the largest state-governmental privacy settlement in history. Notably, Meta has now paid over $2 billion in settlements for biometric privacy claims. As a result, this serves as a significant signal to other companies regarding the importance of handling individuals' biometric information carefully. It's interesting to note that in 2021, Meta announced the shutdown of its face-recognition system and the deletion of the faceprints of over 1 billion people due to concerns about the technology's potential misuse. This news comes amidst Meta's impressive financial performance, with the company making a profit of $12.37 billion in the first three months of this year and reporting an increase of 27% in revenue from a year earlier. While this settlement may not significantly impact Meta's overall business, it represents an important step in upholding privacy rights and holding tech companies accountable for their actions. #PrivacyRights #TechIndustry #BusinessInvestments #PrivacyRights #BiometricPrivacy #FinancialPerformance #TechIndustry

22

Within the past week or so, one federal appellate judge encouraged lawyers to use generative AI, while one federal appellate court dropped its proposed rule requiring lawyers to disclose using AI when writing briefs. The "No-$#!%-Sherlock" takeaway? AI and machine learning, in various forms, have been used in law for decades. They will continue to be. Generative AI, though it is still somewhat of a shiny object to many lawyers and their firms, will be incorporated into the regular practice of law with little fanfare as the years go on. And, eventually, courts and other regulating entities will realize that attorneys are professionals with rules of professional conduct to abide by who will learn how to use AI and other future game-changing technologies in ways that comply with those rules—or be forced to deal with the consequences of not doing so.

7

1 Comment

I think New Mexico’s approach is sensible (and aligns with many other standards we’ve seen coming out). My one confusion is about the opinion’s handling of confidentiality. It suggests confidential information shouldn’t be inputted unless data security and training policies are safe (makes sense). But then the opinion goes on to state that inputs should “always” be anonymized—presumably even if data security and training policies check out. Is there a basis to require all GenAi inputs to be anonymized (assuming data security and training security all checks out)? Do we require every input into every cloud service to be anonymized? But otherwise all seems reasonable! I would hope all lawyers are abiding by these standards already—they are basic stuff.

2

The United States Court of Appeals 5th Circuit just announced it will not adopt a proposed rule specifically requiring disclosure and other requirements for attorneys who use AI as part of their practice. Upon reflection, and based upon a lot of negative feedback on the proposed rule, they recognized that existing rules already cover the same situations. Specifically, attorneys are enforceably required to stand behind the truthfulness and accuracy of court filings. However, the court admonished litigants and lawyers alike that “I used AI” will not be an acceptable excuse for violating existing rules! Here is the formal notice from the court: https://lnkd.in/gJWyEyxg For color, here also are some recent news articles on this announcement: * Reuters: https://lnkd.in/gJmjWSqv * Bloomberg Law: https://lnkd.in/gaVqCkHi And, since I have it at hand, for your convenience, here is the full statement by the court: “The court, having considered the proposed rule, the accompanying comments, and the use of artificial intelligence in the legal practice, has decided not to adopt a special rule regarding the use of artificial intelligence in drafting briefs at this time. Parties and counsel are reminded of their duties regarding their filings before the court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). Parties and counsel are responsible for ensuring that their filings with the court, including briefs, shall be carefully checked for truthfulness and accuracy as the rules already require. “I used AI” will not be an excuse for an otherwise sanctionable offense.” Personally, I think this court got it right. To the extent existing rules cover situations arising from use (or misuse) or AI, it is a good idea to apply those rules first before seeking to make more rules. In the event of demonstrable failures of existing rules, then perhaps it will be more practical to craft new rules to address the gaps that have been revealed. But it is, apparently, a very good idea to sound the alarm far and wide, loud and clear: sometimes generative AI provides incorrect or otherwise unsuitable information and it remains the duty of the attorney (among others) to carefully review and stand behind any work they pass forward. That concludes my public service announcement for today :-)

121

20 Comments

BREAKING NEWS: The 1st trial in AI copyright lawsuits starts this Friday! 🦾The jury will decide the fate of training copies involving Westlaw judicial headnotes used to train ROSS Intelligence AI program, and whether it's a fair use. 🤖 UPDATE: ROSS Intelligence just filed under seal 2 pleadings. The second one is a bit cryptic: "[SEALED] STATEMENT [Defendant's Response to the Court's Sua Sponte Summary Judgment Decision and Request for Continuance and Teleconference] by ROSS Intelligence Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-F)(Moore, David) (Entered: 08/21/2024)." Unclear what "sua sponte" summary judgment decision is referred to. But it sounds like Judge Bibas may have issued an order finding some direct infringement the scope of which to be determined at trial, putting aside the fair use question. Stay tuned UPDATE: Anthropic was sued by book authors. Lawsuits hit 29! Will we get to 30?? Buckle up. 💺 For the latest status report, click below ...👇🏽 https://lnkd.in/gcwGEz75

232

19 Comments

Introduction to Intellectual Property Law in Florida In today’s dynamic and highly competitive marketplace, intellectual property (IP) stands as a cornerstone of innovation and entrepreneurship. IP encompasses a broad range of creations of the mind—from inventions and literary works to brand identifiers and proprietary technologies—that provide businesses with a critical competitive advantage. For Florida’s diverse and burgeoning economy—spanning sectors such as tourism, healthcare, technology, and the creative arts—intellectual property often represents the most valuable asset a company possesses. Effective IP protection not only defines and distinguishes brands but also safeguards innovations and artistic expressions, thereby fostering a fair and thriving business environment. However, with the immense value of IP comes increased vulnerability. Florida’s vibrant economic landscape attracts numerous IP disputes, including trademark infringements, copyright violations, trade secret misappropriations, and patent disputes. These conflicts can arise due to the region’s economic and cultural vibrancy, making robust IP protection not just beneficial but essential for maintaining business integrity and competitive edge. https://lnkd.in/eYWdjax6

1

In the Legal Tech column of the July/August issue of the Texas Bar Journal, Pierre Grosdidier explains the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act after Texas becomes the latest state to protect consumer data privacy. Read it here: https://lnkd.in/gfk755qx #LegalReads #DataPrivacy

5

1 Comment

The Law School AI app allows students to remix and re-present material in multiple ways. Soon, students will be able to: (1) Integrate outlines for multiple classes. (2) Test the material through various AI learning modes. Secure your spot in the beta. Over 1,000 users already. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/d8cxUVQp #legaltech #lawschool

2