On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Open Source and Free Software 2015: Benefits, Risks and Challenges - New York

Released on: Nov. 9, 2015
Running Time: 06:40:42

Running Time Segment Title Faculty Format
[01:35:24] Open Source Technology and License Overview Stuart D Levi ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Gabriel K Holloway ~ Leonard Street & Deinard
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:02:22] Best Practices for License Enforcement and Avoiding Litigation Terry J Ilardi ~ Copyright Counsel, IBM Corporation
Jeffrey D Osterman ~ Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:54:21] Effective Business Practices in the Open Source Cloud Kevan Choset ~ Legal Counsel, Head of Litigation and Intellectual Property, Spotify
Juliette S Smith ~ Director, Barclays
Paul A Ramundo ~ Bloomberg LP
Kevin F Rothman ~ Chief Technology Counsel, American Express
Dina Ganz Traugot ~ Vice President and Associate Group General Counsel, Travelers
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:03:18] Royalty-Free Patents and Open Standards in Open Source Software Carolyn H Blankenship ~ Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Thomson Reuters
Kenneth L Johnson ~ Chadbourne & Parke LLP
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:58:32] Hot Topics: Critical Issues and Important FOSS Litigation in the US and Europe Karen M Sandler ~ Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy
Justin Colannino ~ Associate, Wolf Greenfield
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:02:36] NY: Awareness of Ethics for the Open Source Practitioner Lori E Lesser ~ Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Ellen C Yaroshefsky ~ Clinical Professor of Law, Jacob Burns Center for Ethics in the Practice of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
On-Demand MP3 MP4

This program will address the critical issues that IP, technology and business lawyers need to consider when handling open source software in today’s economy. Armed with this information, you will be better able to help your clients make intelligent choices and decisions about how to take advantage of the benefits and manage the risks presented by open source software.

This program is designed for computer/technology lawyers, IP lawyers, in-house counsel, and outside corporate counsel whose clients develop, use, distribute or invest in technology.


Lecture Topics [Total time 06:40:42]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Introduction and Welcome* [00:04:10]
    Lori E. Lesser, Stuart D. Levi
  • Open Source Technology and License Overview [01:35:24]
    Gabriel K. Holloway, Stuart D. Levi
  • Best Practices for License Enforcement and Avoiding Litigation [01:02:22]
    Terry J. Ilardi, Jeffrey D. Osterman
  • Effective Business Practices in the Open Source Cloud [00:54:21]
    Kevan Choset, Juli Smith, Dina Ganz Traugot, Kevin F. Rothman, Paul A Ramundo
  • Royalty-Free Patents and Open Standards in Open Source Software [01:03:18]
    Carolyn H. Blankenship, Kenneth L. Johnson
  • Hot Topics: Critical Issues and Important FOSS Litigation in the US and Europe [00:58:32]
    Karen M. Sandler, Justin Colannino
  • NY: Awareness of Ethics for the Open Source Practitioner [01:02:36]
    Lori E. Lesser, Ellen C. Yaroshefsky

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • Open Source Initiative: The Open Source Definition
    Stuart D. Levi
  • Client Counseling for Common OSS License Problems
    Terry J. Ilardi
  • Effective Business Practices in the “Open Source Cloud”
    Nissa M. Strottman
  • Enforcement and Obstacles to Enforcement
    Heather J. Meeker
  • Introduction to Software Protection Under Swiss Law
    Juliette Ancelle, Michel A. Jaccard
  • Judgments
    Michel A. Jaccard
  • Frequently Asked Questions about Christoph Hellwig’s VMware Lawsuit
    Michel A. Jaccard
  • Patents in an Open Source World (September 6, 2013)
    Carolyn Blankenship
  • A Not-So-Open Source of Employees—The Gender Gap in the Engineering and Legal Industries
    Harrison Frahn
  • Who Owns the Project Name?
    Pamela S. Chestek
  • Model Trademark Guidelines
    Pamela S. Chestek
  • Is Copyleft Dead? (August 15, 2015)
    Heather J. Meeker
  • Strategic Use of OSS by Commercial Enterprises: Open Source IP Code Scanning
    A. Clifford Allen
  • Ethics and Open Source Software/Technology
    Lori E. Lesser, Ellen Yaroshefsky

Presentation Material


  • Open Source Technology and License Overview
  • Open Source Technology and License Overview
    Gabriel K. Holloway
  • Best Practices for License Enforcement and Avoiding Litigation
    Terry J. Ilardi, Jeffrey D. Osterman
  • Royalty-Free Patents and Open Standards in Open Source Software
    Carolyn H. Blankenship, Kenneth L. Johnson
  • Awareness of Ethics for the Open Source Practitioner
    Lori E. Lesser
Co-Chair(s)
Lori E. Lesser ~ Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Stuart D. Levi ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Speaker(s)
Carolyn H. Blankenship ~ Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property, Thomson Reuters
Kevan Choset ~ Legal Counsel, Head of Litigation and Intellectual Property, Spotify
Justin Colannino ~ Associate, Wolf Greenfield
Dina Ganz Traugot ~ Vice President and Associate Group General Counsel, Travelers
Gabriel K. Holloway ~ Leonard Street & Deinard
Terry J. Ilardi ~ Copyright Counsel, IBM Corporation
Kenneth L. Johnson ~ Chadbourne & Parke LLP
Jeffrey D. Osterman ~ Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Paul A Ramundo ~ Bloomberg LP
Kevin F. Rothman ~ Chief Technology Counsel, American Express
Karen M. Sandler ~ Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy
Juli Smith ~ Director, Barclays
Ellen C. Yaroshefsky ~ Clinical Professor of Law, Jacob Burns Center for Ethics in the Practice of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at cleadministrator@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

IIEI Recertification:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may qualify for the Continuing Education Units (CEUs) necessary to fulfill the Certified U.S. Export Compliance Officer® (CUSECO) continuing education requirements.

 

Print Share Email

 

“Great speakers, very knowledgeable.” – 2014 Attendee

 

“I really enjoyed the first-hand accounts from the presenters about how these problems have arisen for them in the past, and what they did to address them.  It was good to hear from people who have actually dealt with these issues, sometimes for the first time.” – 2014 Attendee

 

"Very informative on both the legal aspects of open source and the community/idealogical aspects of open source." – 2014 Attendee



  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2016 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.