Articles - Page 2 of 4 - Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.

The King is Dead – Long Live the King

What happens when you depend on a platform or device and the company behind it moves on without you? Google is retiring the Bard name and releasing Gemini as both a chatbot and successor to Assistant, which it has used for its smartphones and smart home speakers. Coincidentally, it has begun deprecating certain features built in to Assistant, which is probably upsetting anyone with an old device. As someone who has experienced smart devices being left in the dust as companies continue their onward march into the future, I recommend against buying into one company's platform, since you'll end [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2026-08-13T15:07:07-04:00February 8th, 2024|Intellectual Property|

Josh Waterston is Now a Certified Information Privacy Professional (U.S.)

I am pleased to announce that I am now a Certified Information Privacy Professional (U.S.), a certification provided by the International Association of Privacy Professionals. My firm and I regularly advise clients on privacy matters. I’ve drafted privacy policies and privacy statements, and have advised clients on biometric privacy requirements, texting and telemarketing requirements, and more. I work on client agreements where the parties have to protect personal data, including sensitive personal data (including PHI). I’ve also written and spoken about how intellectual property and artificial intelligence developments will affect our clients. At Wilftek, we help our clients create new [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2026-08-13T15:07:07-04:00December 29th, 2023|Privacy|

Copying Technical Standards Referenced in Laws Held to Be Fair Use by D.C. Court of Appeals

In American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., the D.C. Court of Appeals held on Sept. 12, 2023 that "Public Resource’s copying of material [217 industry standards] incorporated by reference into law, for free dissemination to the public, was fair use." This is likely not the last word on this subject*: the case began in 2013, was appealed, then stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision in the 2020 case of Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org (which held that annotated versions of state laws were not restricted by copyright). (h/t Fred Wilf) "Public Resource posts standards that government agencies have incorporated into law [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2026-08-13T15:07:07-04:00September 25th, 2023|Copyright, Intellectual Property|

Not So Happy Together – The Turtles vs. SiriusXM Copyright Case

What happens when Congress is unable - for almost 50 years - to figure out how to protect recorded music? Specifically, music recorded before 1972? Messy litigation involving the Turtles is what happens. First, some background. Almost 50 years ago, Congress passed the Sound Recording Amendment to the 1909 Copyright Act, which provided copyright protection to sound recordings created on or after February 15, 1972. However, there was no Federal law requiring that royalties be paid for works created before that date until Congress unanimously passed the Music Modernization Act in 2018. This law included a provision that required digital [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2026-08-13T15:07:07-04:00August 31st, 2021|Contracts, Copyright, Intellectual Property|

The Washington Football Team vs. Trademark Squatters – The Sequel

On July 13, 2020, the era of the NFL's Washington Redskins ended (following pressure from the public and from corporate sponsors) and a new era began. Unfortunately, it was - and remains - an unnamed era. The team currently is called "The Washington Football Team" - it's better than "The Washington Insert Name Here" but not by much. Why the delay in getting a new name? Part of it could be related to the issues discussed in our article a year ago. Over the years, trademark applications have been filed for dozens of potential replacement team names. To protect its [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2026-08-13T15:07:07-04:00July 30th, 2021|Intellectual Property, Trademark|

Supreme Court Fights Abuses of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act

For 35 years, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has been a powerful weapon in law enforcement's arsenal against computer hackers. Essentially, it criminalized the standard definition of hacking - accessing information on a computer, where the user lacks authorization to do so. But what happens when someone is authorized to access the information, but then misuses the information? For example, a police officer who accepted a bribe and then accessed a vehicle database for non-law-enforcement purposes? This was the situation in Van Buren v. United States, which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 3, 2021. [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2026-08-13T15:07:07-04:00June 29th, 2021|Contracts, Intellectual Property, Privacy, Trade Secrets|

What Is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act?

Over the past few years, you may have heard various people express support for or opposition to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. While President Trump and others have accused Internet content publishers of using it to discriminate against conservative points of view, the reality is quite different and actually not political at all. While people will often disagree about specific examples of political speech online, the irony is that political speech would have a hard time existing on the Internet without Section 230. Some quick history: Prior to the World Wide Web, Internet content was only easily accessible [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2026-08-13T15:07:08-04:00May 28th, 2021|Copyright, Intellectual Property|

Where Have All the Soundtracks Gone?

When fans of the TV show “Dawson’s Creek” watch it on Netflix, it will sound very different. This is because the theme song (Paula Cole’s "I Don't Want to Wait") has been replaced by Jann Arden’s "Run Like Mad" due to lack of streaming and DVD rights to the Paula Cole song. Dawson’s Creek has plenty of company in this area. Before the rise of streaming services, TV shows could save money by paying for a limited-time license for music rights, to cover the expected life of the show. The cost would be a fraction of the cost of perpetual [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2026-08-13T15:07:08-04:00April 30th, 2021|Contracts, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Licensing|

You Can’t Copyright That?

Copyright law often isn't as well understood as, for example, criminal defense, or family law. Most people may know that if you write a book, perform a song, or take a photograph, you can obtain copyright protection for those works. But what about items that you can't protect through copyright? Here are some examples of items that aren't eligible for copyright protection: Ideas. To be eligible for copyright protection, works must be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." This can be on paper, on a computer drive, etc. Ideas and concepts don't qualify. This can include business practices, [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2026-08-13T15:07:08-04:00March 31st, 2021|Copyright, Intellectual Property, Trademark|

U.S. v. Arthrex: A Battle for Power over Patent Judges

One of my favorite aspects of the law is that something can be standard practice, or settled law, until a creative lawyer or court pulls it apart, turns it on its head, and a new paradigm is born. Think of Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, or Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Each of these decisions upended the prior paradigm. A new case may be joining this list: United States v. Arthrex Inc. At issue is where the administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office fall within the U.S. Constitution: are they “principal officers”, [...Read More...]

Joshua D. Waterston, Esq.2026-08-13T15:07:08-04:00February 26th, 2021|Intellectual Property, Patent|