Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
All Things DataData Privacy, Security, and Rights for Software Companies                       January 18, 2012           ...
This presentation is intended for general informational purposes only and should notbe construed as legal advice or legal ...
Increasing importance of data   Increasing value of data         Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
Importance of data overlookedValue of data given superficial treatment               Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
Data PrivacyData Security Data Rights Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
What “rights”protect data?  Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
Data RightsIn General • No specific comprehensive protection for data or databases in the US • Protection of rights in dat...
Patents                     TrademarksIdeas and                   Branding andInventions                     IdentityCopyr...
Data RightsPatents and Trademarks • Patents   – Available to protect databases      • Structure      • Method of operation...
Data RightsCopyright • U.S. copyright law does not provide specific or express protection to   data or databases • Copyrig...
Data Rights       “The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily,       as they possess some creative spark, no m...
Data Rights       “No one may claim originality as to facts [. . .] facts do not       owe their origin to an act of autho...
Data RightsCopyright • Copyright does not protect data in the form of facts    – Originality, not “sweat of the brow,” is ...
Data RightsTrade Secret • Trade secret protection is relatively easy to obtain    – Not generally known or readily availab...
Patents                     TrademarksIdeas and       Branding andInventions         Identity         ContractsCopyrights ...
Data RightsContracts • Emerging as what amounts to an additional form of IP protection for data • Permit broad protection,...
With data rightsCome data responsibilities        Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
Data ResponsibilitiesIn General • Rapidly changing legal landscape • No comprehensive federal data security or privacy leg...
Data ResponsibilitiesFederal Trade Commission (FTC) • FTC is increasingly active in enforcement actions involving electron...
What is “reasonable and appropriate”?             Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
EnforcementTwitter Complaint • FTC File No. 092 3093 • First case against a “social network” under Section 5 of the FTC Ac...
EnforcementTwitter Complaint • Twitter Privacy Policy claimed    – Twitter employs "administrative, physical, and electron...
EnforcementTwitter Settlement • Consent Agreement   – Announced on June 24, 2010   – Finalized on March 11, 2011 • Key ter...
EnforcementTwitter Lessons •   Simple mistakes, some even understandable •   Real breaches, some very public •   Many year...
Enforcement              Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
EnforcementGoogle Complaint • FTC File No. 102 3136 • Action relating to the Google Buzz social networking service • Alleg...
EnforcementGoogle Complaint • Multiple privacy lapses alleged • No actual security breaches • For example:    – Users who ...
EnforcementGoogle Settlement • Consent Agreement    – Announced on March 30, 2011    – Finalized on October 24, 2011 • Mul...
EnforcementGoogle Settlement • 20 year term • Google barred from misrepresenting:   – Extent to which Google maintains the...
EnforcementGoogle Settlement • 20 year term • Google barred from misrepresenting:    – Extent to which Google maintains th...
EnforcementGoogle Settlement • “Opt-in” requirements • Applicable to:   – New services implemented by Google   – New shari...
EnforcementGoogle Settlement • Comprehensive privacy program must:    – Address privacy risks related to both new and exis...
EnforcementGoogle Settlement • Scope of information covered by the settlement • Broadly defined • Not limited to tradition...
EnforcementGoogle Lessons • Relatively simple mistakes can bring many years of consequences • Settlement requirements stru...
Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
EnforcementFacebook Complaint • FTC File No. 092 3184 • Action relates to privacy of user data collected and shared by Fac...
EnforcementFacebook Complaint • Multiple privacy lapses, no security breaches • For example:    – Modifications allowed ce...
EnforcementFacebook Settlement • Consent Agreement   – Announced on November 29, 2011   – Not yet finalized (comment perio...
Enforcement         “Facebook is obligated to keep the         promises about privacy that it makes to its         hundred...
Enforcement         “Innovation does not have to come at the         expense of consumer privacy.”                       C...
EnforcementFacebook Lessons • A tale of broken “promises” • As with Google, no actual security breach required • Reinforce...
December 1, 2010  Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
FTC Draft ReportBackground •   Based on a yearlong series of privacy roundtables held by the FTC •   Sets out a proposed f...
FTC Draft ReportPrivacy Framework • Proposed framework includes several primary elements    – “Privacy by design”    – Sim...
FTC Draft ReportPrivacy Framework • Proposed framework includes several primary elements    – “Privacy by design”    – Sim...
FTC Draft ReportPrivacy Framework • Proposed framework includes several primary elements    – “Privacy by design”    – Sim...
FTC Draft ReportPrivacy by Design • Report has not yet been finalized • Inclusion in Google and Facebook settlements signa...
New trend?Evolution?Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
Increasing enforcement Growing expectations      Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
What Should You Do?     Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
Closing ThoughtsRemain Vigilant •   We are in an era of increasing data value •   This bring with it an environment of inc...
Thank You.       Jason D. Haislmaierjason.haislmaier@bryancave.com           @haislmaier        Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave ...
This presentation is intended for general informational purposes only and should notbe construed as legal advice or legal ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Boulder/Denver Software Club Presentation: "All Things Data - Data Rights, Security and Privacy for Software Companies"

811 views

Published on

January 18, 2012 presentation by Jason Haislmaier to the Boulder and Denver Software Clubs on data rights, data privacy, and data security.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Boulder/Denver Software Club Presentation: "All Things Data - Data Rights, Security and Privacy for Software Companies"

  1. 1. All Things DataData Privacy, Security, and Rights for Software Companies January 18, 2012 Jason D. Haislmaier jason.haislmaier@bryancave.com @haislmaier Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  2. 2. This presentation is intended for general informational purposes only and should notbe construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances,nor is it intended to address specific legal compliance issues that may arise inparticular circumstances. Please consult counsel concerning your own situation andany specific legal questions you may have.The thoughts and opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the individualpresenter(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official or unofficial thoughts oropinions of their employers. Open Source SoftwareFor further information regarding this presentation, please contact the presenter(s)listed in the presentation.Unless otherwise noted, all original content in this presentation is licensed under theCreative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United StatesLicense available at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us. Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  3. 3. Increasing importance of data Increasing value of data Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  4. 4. Importance of data overlookedValue of data given superficial treatment Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  5. 5. Data PrivacyData Security Data Rights Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  6. 6. What “rights”protect data? Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  7. 7. Data RightsIn General • No specific comprehensive protection for data or databases in the US • Protection of rights in data and databases typically handled through other general areas of the law – Intellectual property (IP) laws – Contract laws – Other theories as well (but generally limited) • Protections for databases do exist outside of the US – EU Data Protection Directive (1996) • Protects non-original portions of databases not protected by copyright law • Protection is based on the investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting the contents of the database • Prevents extraction or re-utilization of all or a portion of the contents of a database – Limited examples of laws in other foreign countries as well Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  8. 8. Patents TrademarksIdeas and Branding andInventions IdentityCopyrights Trade Secrets Creative “Know-How”Expressions Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  9. 9. Data RightsPatents and Trademarks • Patents – Available to protect databases • Structure • Method of operation • Business methods employing databases – But the databases must meet the criteria for patent protection – Less applicable in the case of unstructured data itself • Trademarks – Applicable in connection with the name or brand for a product or service – Not applicable to data or databases themselves Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  10. 10. Data RightsCopyright • U.S. copyright law does not provide specific or express protection to data or databases • Copyright protection for data and databases is analyzed like any other work • The standard for obtaining a copyright is relatively low – Original work of authorship – Fixed in a tangible medium of expression • But, data and databases are not always afforded protection Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  11. 11. Data Rights “The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, no matter how crude, humble or obvious. ” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. 499 U.S. 340 (1991) Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  12. 12. Data Rights “No one may claim originality as to facts [. . .] facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship. The distinction is one between creation and discovery. The first person to find and report a particular fact has not created the fact; he or she has merely discovered its existence.” Justice O’Connor in Feist Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  13. 13. Data RightsCopyright • Copyright does not protect data in the form of facts – Originality, not “sweat of the brow,” is the basis for copyright protection – Facts are not originally authored or created through mere discovery • Copyright can protect information or content in the form of original expressions – Information or content having some level of creativity – Entertainment content, new media, UGC all generally meet this test • This results in varied levels of protection for data and databases – Unstructured raw data in the form of facts – no protection available – Original information or content having some level of creativity – protection available – Structure, coordination, and arrangement of data – “thin” protection available (for the compilation, but not for the underlying data) Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  14. 14. Data RightsTrade Secret • Trade secret protection is relatively easy to obtain – Not generally known or readily available – Independent economic value – Reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy • Trade secrets have broad potential applicability to data and databases – Virtually any type of data or information – In nearly any form or format – Must establish and maintain secrecy • Trade secrets are enforceable and transferrable like any other IP right • Primary limitation is the requirement for secrecy - once the secrecy is gone, the trade secret is gone • Premium on establishing enforceable nondisclosure obligations through NDAs and other contracts to maintain secrecy Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  15. 15. Patents TrademarksIdeas and Branding andInventions Identity ContractsCopyrights Trade Secrets Creative “Know-How”Expressions Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  16. 16. Data RightsContracts • Emerging as what amounts to an additional form of IP protection for data • Permit broad protection, even over data and databases not subject to traditional IP protection • Limited in that they provide protection only to the extent a party is bound by the contract • Even where traditional IP protection is available, contracts have become critical to obtaining and clarifying rights in data – Each form of IP has its own rules regarding ownership – Left to applicable law, ownership is often (very) unclear – At best this leaves the potential for confusion – Assignments and licenses are preferred to clarify these rights • Software industry expectations have risen with the rising value of data – Contracts required to evidence adequate rights in transactions involving data – Not unlike rights in software itself Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  17. 17. With data rightsCome data responsibilities Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  18. 18. Data ResponsibilitiesIn General • Rapidly changing legal landscape • No comprehensive federal data security or privacy legislation • A patchwork of relevant laws at multiple levels – State laws (e.g., data security breach and notification) – Federal laws (e.g., FTC Act) – Non-US laws (EU and elsewhere) – Growing number of industry-specific laws • Healthcare – HIPPA and HI-TECH • Financial Services – Gramm-Leach-Bliley • Children – COPPA • Others – education, payment processing, etc. • Legal structure brings many challenges Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  19. 19. Data ResponsibilitiesFederal Trade Commission (FTC) • FTC is increasingly active in enforcement actions involving electronically stored data and information – More than 25 actions to date – Targeting security violations as well as privacy violations • Legal authority comes from Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, as amended) – FTC Act does not contain specific privacy or security requirements – Section 5 contains prohibitions on unfair and deceptive trade practices – FTC asserts that failures to implement “reasonable and appropriate” data security or privacy measures can constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  20. 20. What is “reasonable and appropriate”? Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  21. 21. Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  22. 22. EnforcementTwitter Complaint • FTC File No. 092 3093 • First case against a “social network” under Section 5 of the FTC Act • Alleges unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the FTC Act – Inadequate steps to prevent unauthorized access to user accounts – Misleading users by promising to adequately prevent unauthorized access to user accounts in its privacy policy • Not just a privacy action, multiple security lapses cited – Gave employees the ability to exercise administrative control of Twitter (access to nonpublic user information and ability to reset passwords) – Enabled employees to access the administrative system through the same web page as users – Instructed employees to use personal email accounts for company business (many not even issued company addresses) – Hackers gained actual administrative control of Twitter on two occasions Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  23. 23. EnforcementTwitter Complaint • Twitter Privacy Policy claimed – Twitter employs "administrative, physical, and electronic measures designed to protect your information from unauthorized access" – Twitter protects the privacy of nonpublic messages and information – Twitter honors users privacy choices • FTC alleged that in reality, Twitter failed to: – Require “hard-to-guess” administrative passwords – Prohibit employees from storing administrative passwords in plain text in personal email accounts – Disable administrative passwords after unsuccessful login attempts – Provide a non-public administrative login page – Require periodic changes of administrative passwords – Restrict employee access to administrative controls to only those employees whose job duties required administrative access Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  24. 24. EnforcementTwitter Settlement • Consent Agreement – Announced on June 24, 2010 – Finalized on March 11, 2011 • Key terms – 20 year term – Twitter barred from misrepresentations regarding security, privacy, and confidentiality practices – Twitter must establish a comprehensive information security program – Biennial independent security assessments of security program for 10 years – Multiple record-keeping requirements to allow FTC compliance monitoring Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  25. 25. EnforcementTwitter Lessons • Simple mistakes, some even understandable • Real breaches, some very public • Many years worth of consequences • Focus on: – Poor security practices leading to breaches, not breaches themselves – Accuracy and adequacy of statements in privacy policies and online documents – All non-public information, not just sensitive financial information or identity theft • Settlement requirements are nothing new, FTC has developed these steps in a series of security cases over the years • Note the absence of a monetary penalty or admission of wrongdoing • Case appears to signal increased scrutiny on security by the FTC Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  26. 26. Enforcement Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  27. 27. EnforcementGoogle Complaint • FTC File No. 102 3136 • Action relating to the Google Buzz social networking service • Alleges unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the FTC Act – Ineffective, confusing and difficult procedures for opting-out of Google Buzz – Violations of Google privacy policy by failing to adequately disclose privacy practices and obtain consent for new uses of previously collected user information – Violations of U.S.-EU Safe Harbor for compliance with the EU Data Protection Directive Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  28. 28. EnforcementGoogle Complaint • Multiple privacy lapses alleged • No actual security breaches • For example: – Users who chose to opt-out of Buzz were still enrolled in certain Google Buzz features – Google failed to inform users who did not opt-out that Buzz would reveal the identity of their most e-mailed contacts by default – Google represented that information from users signing up for Gmail would only be used to provide a “web-based email service,” but used that information to populate accounts on Buzz – Google violated the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor by failing to provide notice and choice before using consumer data for a purpose other than for which it was collected Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  29. 29. EnforcementGoogle Settlement • Consent Agreement – Announced on March 30, 2011 – Finalized on October 24, 2011 • Multiple firsts – First time a comprehensive privacy program (not security program) was required by FTC – First FTC enforcement of the US-EU Safe Harbor Principles Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  30. 30. EnforcementGoogle Settlement • 20 year term • Google barred from misrepresenting: – Extent to which Google maintains the privacy or confidentiality of personal information of users – Compliance with the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor requirements Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  31. 31. EnforcementGoogle Settlement • 20 year term • Google barred from misrepresenting: – Extent to which Google maintains the privacy or confidentiality of personal information of users – Compliance with the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor requirements • Google must: – Implement “opt-in” requirements before introducing new services involving public disclosure of user information – Obtain “opt-in” consent from users prior to using or sharing information with third parties in a way not covered by previous consents – Establish and maintain comprehensive privacy program - “privacy by design” • Conduct biannual audits by an independent third parties to assess privacy and data protection practices for 20 years • No monetary penalty or admission of wrongdoing Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  32. 32. EnforcementGoogle Settlement • “Opt-in” requirements • Applicable to: – New services implemented by Google – New sharing with third parties Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  33. 33. EnforcementGoogle Settlement • Comprehensive privacy program must: – Address privacy risks related to both new and existing products and services – Protect the privacy of user information • Under the program, Google must: – Appoint employees to coordinate and be accountable for privacy program – Identify reasonably foreseeable material internal and external privacy risks – Assess the sufficiency of any safeguards in place to control these risks – Design and implement reasonable privacy controls and procedures – Regularly test, monitor, and assess the safeguards – Implement employee training and monitoring – Develop reasonable steps to select service providers capable of protecting the privacy of user information – Contractually require service providers to implement and maintain appropriate privacy protections – Evaluate and adjust the program in light of changes to Google’s operations Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  34. 34. EnforcementGoogle Settlement • Scope of information covered by the settlement • Broadly defined • Not limited to traditional personal information (name and address) • No mention of financially sensitive information or identity theft Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  35. 35. EnforcementGoogle Lessons • Relatively simple mistakes can bring many years of consequences • Settlement requirements structured similarly to Twitter, but with a focus on privacy • No actual security breach required for FTC action • Broad scope of personal information covered (not limited to sensitive information) • New products constitute new uses of data – Compliance with existing privacy-related promises to users – Affirmative “opt-in” consent for changes to privacy policies before applying the changes retroactively (i.e., to previously collected information) • Focus on clear and conspicuous disclosure of material privacy practices and changes to those practices • Enforcement of U.S.-EU Safe Harbor certification compliance • Initial enforcement on “privacy by design” framework Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  36. 36. Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  37. 37. EnforcementFacebook Complaint • FTC File No. 092 3184 • Action relates to privacy of user data collected and shared by Facebook within the Facebook platform and with third parties • Alleges unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the FTC Act – Unfairly allowing user information to be shared and made public through Facebook after telling users they could elect to keep it private – Altering or enhancing the Facebook service in a manner that deceptively expanded the sharing of user data, without obtaining user consent Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  38. 38. EnforcementFacebook Complaint • Multiple privacy lapses, no security breaches • For example: – Modifications allowed certain information designated by users as private (e.g., friends list) to be made public, without notice or advanced approval – Indicated that Facebook apps would have access only to user information required to work, when the apps could access far more data – Indicated that users could restrict sharing of personal information to limited audiences (e.g., friends only), but did not actually prevent information from being shared with third-party applications used by friends – Indicated that "Verified Apps" program certified the security and compliance of Facebook apps when it did neither – Shared personal information with advertisers despite promises not to do so – Continued to make user photos and videos accessible even after account deletion or deactivation, despite statements to the contrary – Claimed compliance with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor certification, but violated the “Notice” and “Choice” principles required for certification Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  39. 39. EnforcementFacebook Settlement • Consent Agreement – Announced on November 29, 2011 – Not yet finalized (comment period closed on December 30, 2011) • Key terms – 20 year term – Facebook barred from misrepresentations regarding privacy of user information • User ability to control of privacy of information • Availability of user information to third parties • Accessibility of user information by third parties after account termination – Facebook must • Obtain “opt-in” before sharing information beyond user-selected privacy settings • Ensure user information is not shared after deletion or termination of an account • Implement and maintain a comprehensive privacy program – “privacy by design” – Multiple record-keeping requirements to allow FTC compliance monitoring – No monetary penalty or admission of wrongdoing Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  40. 40. Enforcement “Facebook is obligated to keep the promises about privacy that it makes to its hundreds of millions of users.” Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  41. 41. Enforcement “Innovation does not have to come at the expense of consumer privacy.” Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  42. 42. EnforcementFacebook Lessons • A tale of broken “promises” • As with Google, no actual security breach required • Reinforcement of precedents set in the Google settlement – Broad scope of personal information (not just sensitive information) – Compliance with privacy-related “promises” made to users – Affirmative “opt-in” consent for changes to privacy policies before applying the changes retroactively (i.e., to previously collected information) – Clear and conspicuous disclosure of privacy practices and material changes to those practices – Continued emphasis on U.S.-EU Safe Harbor certification compliance – Enforcement of FTC “privacy by design” framework • Along with Google and Twitter settlements, the Facebook settlement defines a new “template” for FTC privacy settlement agreements Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  43. 43. December 1, 2010 Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  44. 44. FTC Draft ReportBackground • Based on a yearlong series of privacy roundtables held by the FTC • Sets out a proposed framework for the protection of consumer privacy • Applicable to both traditional (offline) and online businesses • Covers a broad range of information – Personally identifiable information – Information that can be “reasonably linked” to a specific individual, computer or other device • Provides insight into the intentions of the FTC • Leaves many specific questions unanswered Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  45. 45. FTC Draft ReportPrivacy Framework • Proposed framework includes several primary elements – “Privacy by design” – Simplified consumer choice – Greater transparency Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  46. 46. FTC Draft ReportPrivacy Framework • Proposed framework includes several primary elements – “Privacy by design” – Simplified consumer choice – Greater transparency Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  47. 47. FTC Draft ReportPrivacy Framework • Proposed framework includes several primary elements – “Privacy by design” – Simplified consumer choice – Greater transparency Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  48. 48. FTC Draft ReportPrivacy by Design • Report has not yet been finalized • Inclusion in Google and Facebook settlements signals that the FTC believes business should adopt privacy by design as a requirement • Inclusion in future settlements will continue to move privacy by design toward becoming a legal requirement – FTC is affectively treating privacy by design as a de facto legal requirement – Beginning to influence and define industry expectations, particularly online – Likely to serve as guidance for courts and lawmakers Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  49. 49. New trend?Evolution?Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  50. 50. Increasing enforcement Growing expectations Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  51. 51. What Should You Do? Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  52. 52. Closing ThoughtsRemain Vigilant • We are in an era of increasing data value • This bring with it an environment of increasing enforcement • Learn from the growing list of lessons • Understand the obligations and expectations placed on your business – Legal obligations – Business reality • Your “enforcement” issue may come from a potential customer, financing source, or acquirer rather than the FTC • Take steps now to meet the evolving standards – Governmental and legal – Business and practical • Make privacy and security a consideration in the design and evolution of your software or platform Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  53. 53. Thank You. Jason D. Haislmaierjason.haislmaier@bryancave.com @haislmaier Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO
  54. 54. This presentation is intended for general informational purposes only and should notbe construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances,nor is it intended to address specific legal compliance issues that may arise inparticular circumstances. Please consult counsel concerning your own situation andany specific legal questions you may have.The thoughts and opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the individualpresenter(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official or unofficial thoughts oropinions of their employers. Open Source SoftwareFor further information regarding this presentation, please contact the presenter(s)listed in the presentation.Unless otherwise noted, all original content in this presentation is licensed under theCreative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United StatesLicense available at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us. Copyright 2012 Bryan Cave HRO

×