Τετάρτη, 31 Οκτωβρίου 2012

AIIP - First International workshop on Artificial Intelligence and IP law



AIIP, the first international workshop on AI and IP, will be held in
conjunction with the JURIX conference on AI and Law on the 17.12.2012 in
Amsterdam.

http://justinian.leibnizcenter.org/jurix/

Important dates:

Deadline for abstracts (not more than 1000 words) : Friday the 23.11.2012

Notification of acceptance: Thursday 29.11.2012

The workshop is supported by the RCUK Centre for Copyright and New
Business Models in the Creative Economy, CREATe. http://www.create.ac.uk

Call for Papers:

The digital economy is a technology mediated economy. Computer programs create, store, replicate and distribute its main commodity, digital objects of various kinds. Copyright law has taken on particular significance in this economy, protecting the investment of companies and creators, incentivising innovation and creativity, and ultimately becoming the central element that regulates the relation between the stakeholders in this economy. Ever since Larry Lessig’s proposal to understand “Digital Rights Management” as a form of regulation through
code, the field of copyright in the digital economy has opened up a new field of research questions for Artificial Intelligence and Law. How can we represent in more intelligent and semantically richer ways legal concepts that ensure that all, and only, lawful use can be made of digital objects such as film clips or music tunes? How can Information Retrieval support e-discovery in IP litigation? How can we support through technology creators and digital businesses to manage their IP
rights, or to use third party material in a law-compliant way? These are just a few of the questions that offer new and exciting applications for artificial intelligence in a legal context.

Despite this obvious opportunity for AI and Law research to contribute to the open problem of the adequate regulation of the digital economy, papers with a focus on IP law have been the exception in the AI and law community. The first workshop an AI and IP aims to address this issue, by inviting researchers with background in law or AI to exchange ideas, develop new research programmes and ultimately to form a new community of experts. For the first workshop, we invite papers on topics such as
- “intelligent” DRM systems and copyright regulation through computer code.
- formal models of copyright law and legislation.
- e-discovery for IP litigation.
- decision support systems for IP law.
- intelligent compliance support systems for copyright protected assets.
- intelligent software supported mediation support for IP disputes

Abstracts of no more than 1000 words should be send to the workshop
organiser, Burkhard Schafer, B.schafer@ed.ac.uk

Publication possibilities of full papers will be discussed at the
workshop, contacts have been made to several journals, including Script-ed.

Important dates:

Deadline for abstracts: Friday the 23.11.2012

Notification of acceptance: Thursday 29.11.2012

At least one author for every accepted paper will have to register
through the conference website,

http://justinian.leibnizcenter.org/jurix/?url=registration

Παρασκευή, 26 Οκτωβρίου 2012

EU Case Law on Software Protection






A body of case law of the CJEU is being developed that relates to software protection. In this post, we 'll bring you updates about the jurisprudence of the Court on relevant issues.

1. Case C-128/11 - UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp.

Abstract: An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his ‘used’ licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet. The exclusive right of distribution of a copy of a computer program covered by such a licence is exhausted on its first sale. Whether that action can be classified as exhausting the rightholder's distribution right with regard to the copies downloaded - Marketing of 'used' licences of programs downloaded by the first acquirer - Concept of 'lawful acquirer.


Operative part of the judgment

a. Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program is exhausted if the copyright holder who has authorised, even free of charge, the downloading of that copy from the internet onto a data carrier has also conferred, in return for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period.

b. Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder's website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision.



2. C-406/10 - SAS Institute

Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division - United Kingdom.

Intellectual property - Directive 91/250/EEC - Legal protection of computer programs - Articles 1(2) and 5(3) - Scope of protection - Creation directly or via another process - Computer program protected by copyright - Reproduction of the functions by a second program without access to the source code of the first program - Decompilation of the object code of the first computer program - Directive 2001/29/EC - Copyright and related rights in the information society - Article 2(a) - User manual for a computer program - Reproduction in another computer program - Infringement of copyright - Condition - Expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the user manual.


Operative part of the judgment
a. Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program and, as such, are not protected by copyright in computer programs for the purposes of that directive.

b. Article 5(3) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that a person who has obtained a copy of a computer program under a licence is entitled, without the authorisation of the owner of the copyright, to observe, study or test the functioning of that program so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program, in the case where that person carries out acts covered by that licence and acts of loading and running necessary for the use of the computer program, and on condition that that person does not infringe the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright in that program.

c. Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the reproduction, in a computer program or a user manual for that program, of certain elements described in the user manual for another computer program protected by copyright is capable of constituting an infringement of the copyright in the latter manual if – this being a matter for the national court to ascertain – that reproduction constitutes the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the user manual for the computer program protected by copyright.



3. Case C‑393/09,Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace – Svaz softwarové ochrany

Intellectual property – Directive 91/250/EEC – Legal protection of computer programs – Notion of ‘expression in any form of a computer program’ – Inclusion or non-inclusion of a program’s graphic user interface – Copyright – Directive 2001/29/EC – Copyrights and related rights in the information society – Television broadcasting of a graphic user interface – Communication of a work to the public.

Operative part of the judgement:

a. A graphic user interface is not a form of expression of a computer program within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs and cannot be protected by copyright as a computer program under that directive. Nevertheless, such an interface can be protected by copyright as a work by Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society if that interface is its author’s own intellectual creation.

b. Television broadcasting of a graphic user interface does not constitute communication to the public of a work protected by copyright within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29.



4. Case T-198/98- Micro Leader v Commission
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 December 1999.
Micro Leader Business v Commission of the European Communities.
Competition - Complaint - Rejection - Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and 82 EC) - Prohibition on importing software marketed in a third country - Exhaustion of copyright - Directive 91/250/EEC.



5. T-201/04 - Microsoft v Commission

Main proceedings
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) of 17 September 2007.
Microsoft Corp. v Commission of the European Communities.
Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Client PC operating systems - Work group server operating systems - Streaming media players - Decision finding infringements of Article 82 EC - Refusal of the dominant undertaking to supply and authorise the use of interoperability information - Supply by the dominant undertaking of its client PC operating system conditional on the simultaneous acquisition of its media player - Remedies - Appointment of an independent monitoring trustee - Fine - Determination of the amount - Proportionality.


The Court confirmed the legality of the Decision and fine imposed by the
Commission on Microsoft for abuse of a dominant position in relation to the
refusal to supply the interoperability information for operating PC Windows
with other systems and the tied sale of Windows Media Player.

The Commission had adopted a Decision stating that Microsoft had infringed Article 82 EC by committing abuses of a dominant position because it had engaged in two kinds of abusive conduct, first the refusal by Microsoft to supply its competitors with “interoperability information” and to authorise the use of that information for the purpose of developing and distributing products competing with Microsoft’s own products on the work group server operating systems market, and second by making the availability of the Windows client PC operating system conditional on the simultaneous acquisition of the Windows Media Player software, the consequence of which is the restriction of competition in the multimedia player market. The
Commission imposed a fine of EUR 497 million on Microsoft, as well as corrective
action to be taken within a certain period of time, subject to a complex verification mechanism.

Microsoft brought proceedings for annulment of this Decision before the Court of First Instance, invoking several arguments including errors of assessment by the
Commission, the infringement of rules on the protection of intellectual property rights and the infringement of the principle of proportionality. Microsoft also asked, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine.
In its judgment, the Court rejected Microsoft’s applications and confirmed the
Commission’s 2004 Decision, in particular with respect to the abuses of a dominant
position and the fine handed down.

Only one minor aspect of this Decision was annulled, namely the imposition of a
monitoring trustee with investigation powers with respect to Microsoft, in the context of the mechanism introduced to monitor the introduction of the corrective measures imposed on the company, as well as payment by Microsoft of the costs associated with this monitoring trustee. In fact, the Court considered that the Commission is thus delegating to the monitoring trustee excessive powers of investigation which the Commission alone can exercise pursuant to Community law.
This judgment is not being appealed against by Microsoft, which has in fact abandoned its other claims before the Court in cases relating to the one at issue.






6. T-19/07 - Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission

Main proceedings
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010.
Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA v European Commission.


The General Court orders the Commission to pay Systran liquidated damages of
€12 001 000. The Commission infringed the copyright and know-how held by the Systran group in the Unix version of the Systran machine translation software.

On 4 October 2003 the Commission published a call for tenders for the maintenance and linguistic enhancement of its machine translation system. Following that call for tenders, Systran – the parent company of Systran Luxembourg – contacted
the Commission to inform it that the planned work appeared likely to infringe its intellectual property rights. After correspondence between Systran and the Commission, the latter took the view that Systran had not produced ‘probative documents’ capable of establishing the rights which Systran might claim in respect of its EC-Systran Unix machine translation system. The Commission therefore considered that the Systran group had no right to object to the work carried out by the company which had been successful in the call for tenders. Considering that, after the award of the tender contract, the Commission had unlawfully disclosed its know-how to a third party and that the Commission was infringing its copyright when unauthorised development of the EC-Systran Unix version was carried out by the successful contractor, Systran and Systran Luxembourg brought an action for damages against the Commission before the General Court.

Since the parties could not reach any agreement to resolve the matter when invited by the General Court following the hearing to attempt conciliation, the General Court now gives its ruling on the action for damages. The General Court states, first, that the dispute concerns non-contractual liability. The contracts entered into in the past by the Commission to enable it to use the Systran software do not deal with questions of disclosure of Systran’s know-how to a third party or the carrying out of work which might infringe the intellectual property rights of that company.

As regards the unlawfulness of the Commission’s alleged conduct, the General Court considers that the Systran group has established that there is a substantial similarity, in the core material and certain linguistic routines (programmes), between the Systran Unix and EC-Systran Unix versions, and that the Systran group can therefore rely on the rights held in the Systran Unix version, developed and marketed by Systran since 1993, to object to the disclosure to a third party without its consent of the derivative EC-Systran Unix version, adapted by Systran Luxembourg from 1997 onwards to meet the needs of the Commission.


Literature:

C. Russel, Exhaustion of rights and downloaded software


More Monday Miscellany, The IPKat

Angus MacCulloch & Albert Sánchez, The CJEU, Copyright, and the ‘First Sale’ Doctrine


Keane Legal, European Court upholds sale of used software products purschased in UsedSoft v. Oracle

Court of Justice of the European Union hands down
landmark judgment on dealing in used software
licenses


European Court of Justice: Secondhand Sales Are Legal

Gareth Halfacree, EU court rules second-hand sales of digital goods legal


Dr. Thomas Fischl, Dr. Alexander R. Klett, LL.M., ECJ allows resale of ‘used’ software licences in landmark case and extends the principle of exhaustion even to downloaded (non-physical) copies

Τετάρτη, 24 Οκτωβρίου 2012

Regulating Cloud Computing: Clear Skies Ahead?


Presented in association with UCC’s LLM in Intellectual Property and E Law



Friday 16 November, 2012, 2.00 p.m. to 5.15 p.m.

Room G10, Brookfield Health Sciences Complex, UCC, College Road, Cork



Cloud computing - internet-based delivery of IT services – is a growth industry and many Irish businesses are operating as either cloud providers or cloud clients. This conference, presented in association with UCC’s LLM in Intellectual Property and E Law, will discuss regulation of cloud computing, including questions such as the following:



What legal issues need to be considered by businesses in contracting for the provision or use of cloud computing services?
Can an appropriate regulatory balance be struck between cloud provider and cloud client interests?
What are the legal consequences of security breaches regarding data held in the cloud?
What are the implications of storage of data in Europe, the USA and other jurisdictions?
What is the relevance of the EU / US safe harbour arrangements for cloud computing?
What are the implications of the EU’s draft General Data Protection Regulation?
Are concerns about the USA’s Patriot Act and Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties in cloud computing justified?
How are intellectual property law issues dealt with in a cloud environment?


Speakers:

Professor Ian Walden, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary, University of London and member of the Cloud Legal Project.


Mr John O'Connor, Head of the Technology and Commercial Contracts Group at Matheson Ormsby Prentice, Solicitors.


Ms Síofra Flood, COO and General Counsel at Swrve, leading provider of in-application testing and analytics, California and Dublin.

Τετάρτη, 17 Οκτωβρίου 2012

Call for Papers: Online Privacy: Consenting to your Future


International
Conference

Malta, March 21 – 22 2013

Call For papers:
The internet has provided individuals with a virtually unlimited choice for communication and content-sharing services. The social network and user-generated content services (SNS/UGC) get users to quickly connect to wider networks, providing certain personal details and agreement to terms of service. However, when consent can be given as fast as a click of the mouse, the question arises are to whether this remains an effective and fair way of protecting the individual. Do individuals understand the agreements into which they are entering? Is the law adequate and effective in its current state?

With new legislative and policy instruments proposed for data processing in Europe and beyond, the focus turns to what sort of environment consumers, service providers and policy-makers envision for the future. What form of relationship do users want with the services they use? Will new proposals help in creating this relationship?

The CONSENT project, financed by the EU Commission under the FP7 Program, addresses these and other related questions and issues through a comprehensive and scientific approach which combines quantitative and qualitative research on the awareness and perceptions of consumers with a review of existing legislation to produce guidelines as well as a toolkit which could inform system designers, policy makers and legislative bodies across Europe and beyond.

The Online Privacy: Consenting to your Future conference brings together experts from different perspectives (policy makers, academia, industry and citizen groups) to share experience and knowledge as well as to discuss risks and opportunities inherent to the growth of UGC/SNS on the Internet. The Online Privacy: Consenting to Your Future Conference will include invited speakers, reports of the research covered in the CONSENT Project as well as peer-reviewed studies received in response to this Call for Papers.

Papers and Panels are invited to address any one of the following themes:
Consumer attitudes about online privacy
Consumer behaviour and online privacy
Regulating online privacy across borders
Privacy and cloud computing
Privacy protection of online consumers
Privacy and minors online
‘Privacy by design’ online
Reasonable expectation of privacy online and policy-making
Technical tools/applications to control personal information online
Emerging technologies and privacy online
The future of privacy online
Efficacy and fairness of online contracts;
The economics and business models of social networks: present and future;
Consumer usage of SNS/UGCs and perceptions
The European Commission’s proposals on data protection rules to safeguard online privacy rights, including the “right to be forgotten“, and the impact of these rules on business and consumers;
Technical challenges and solutions to balancing consumer needs, the law and business aims;
What input should service providers and other stakeholders be giving to policy makers in Strasbourg & Brussels?
Comparison of global privacy norms in law and policy;
The perspective of data controllers and processors regarding privacy, security and meeting the concerns of the individual;Best practice for SNS/UGC services;
European culture(s) and privacy;
Privacy impact assessments and social-networks.

Authors wishing to submit their contributions should submit an extended abstract of max 1500 words via Abstract Submission form accessible here by 3 December 2012.

Important Dates
3 December 2012: Abstract submission
15 December 2012: Notification of acceptance
28 Februar 2013: Camera-ready paper
21-22 March 2013: Conference

Σύγχρονα ζητήματα προστασίας προσωπικών δεδομένων 2012





Ημερίδα - διοργάνωση του Τμήματος Αρχειονομίας και Βιβλιοθηκονομίας, Ιόνιο Πανεπιστήμιο
με τίτλο «Σύγχρονα ζητήματα προστασίας προσωπικών δεδομένων»

Αθήνα Τετάρτη 5 Δεκεμβρίου 2012

Νομική Βιβλιοθήκη, αίθουσα «Λυκαβηττός»

Ομιλητές:

Ιωάννης Ιγγλεζάκης, Επίκουρος Καθηγητής, Νομική Σχολή Θεσσαλονίκης
Μαρία Κανελλοπούλου-Μπότη, Επίκουρη Καθηγήτρια, ΤΑΒ, Ιόνιο Πανεπιστήμιο
Λίλιαν Μήτρου, Αναπληρώτρια Καθηγήτρια, Πανεπιστήμιο Αιγαίου
Τζένη Αλεξανδροπούλου-Αιγυπτιάδου, Αναπληρώτρια Καθηγήτρια, Πανεπιστήμιο Μακεδονίας
Ανδρέας Τάκης, Επίκουρος Καθηγητής, Νομική Σχολή Θεσσαλονίκης
Φερενίκη Παναγοπούλου-Κουτνατζή, Δρ., Αρχή Προστασίας Δεδομένων

Χώρος Διοργάνωσης: αίθουσα «Λυκαβηττός»
Ενημέρωση: 01/10/2012

Πέμπτη, 11 Οκτωβρίου 2012

Draft Regulation "on electronic identification and trusted services for electronic transactions in the internal market"


On 04.06.2012 the EU Commission submitted a Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market (COM(2012) 238 final).

The proposal will now go through the ordinary legislative procedure for its adoption by co-decision of the European Parliament and the Council. The new framework for electronic identification and electronic trust services will: ensure mutual recognition and acceptance of electronic identification across borders; give legal effect and mutual recognition to trust services including enhancing current rules on e-signatures and providing a legal framework for electronic seals, time stamping, electronic document acceptability, electronic delivery and website authentication. This proposal represents the first milestone in the implementation of the objectives of the Legislation Team (eIDAS) Task Force set up by the Commission in order to to deliver a predictable regulatory environment for electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market to boost the user convenience, trust and confidence in the digital world (See Digital Agenda).

The proposal fully respects both existing national ID systems and the preferences of those Member States without national ID schemes. It allows countries with e-ID to opt-in or to remain outside of the European scheme. Once a Member State notifies that they wish to join the pan-European scheme, they must offer the same access to public services via e-ID that they offer to their own citizens.

European Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes said "People and businesses should be able to transact within a borderless Digital Single Market, that is the value of Internet. Legal certainty and trust is also essential, so a more comprehensive eSignatures and eIdentification Regulation is needed."

"This proposal will mean you can make the most of your e-ID, if you have one. With mutual recognition of national e-IDs and common standards for trust services and eSignatures, we can prevent a national carve-up of the Internet and online public services and make life easier for millions of businesses and even more citizens. "

The proposed Regulation will not:

oblige EU Member States to introduce, or individuals to obtain, national identity cards, electronic identity cards or other eID solutions,
introduce a European eID or any kind of European database,
enable or require the sharing of personal information with other parties.
Key beneficiaries of the various aspects of the Regulation will include:

Students who could register for a foreign university online, rather than having to travel abroad to complete the paper work in person.
Citizens arranging a move to another EU country or a marriage abroad or filing multiple tax returns.
Patients needing medical assistance abroad could securely check or authorise a doctor to access their online medical records.

Companies could tender online for public sector contracts anywhere in the EU. They could sign, time stamp and seal their bids electronically instead of printing and sending multiple paper copies of the bids by courier.
People wanting to do business in another EU country could set up a company through the Internet and submit annual reports online, with ease.
Governments could reduce administrative burdens and increase efficiency, better serving their citizens and saving taxpayers' money.


Background
Both elements of the Regulation – e-ID and eSignatures - will create a predictable regulatory environment to enable secure and seamless electronic interactions between businesses, citizens and public authorities. This will increase the effectiveness of public and private online services, eBusiness and electronic commerce in the EU.

The approach to eSignatures, which builds on the current eSignature Directive (Directive 1999/93/EC), has brought a degree of harmonisation to practices across Europe. All countries in the EU have legal frameworks for eSignatures, however these diverge and make it de facto impossible to conduct cross border electronic transactions. The same holds true for trust services like time stamping, electronic seals and delivery, and website authentication, which lack European interoperability. Therefore, this Regulation proposes common rules and practices for these services.

For e-ID the Regulation provides for the legal certainty by the mutual recognition and acceptance principle in which Member States accept national e-IDs which have been officially notified to the Commission. It is not obligatory for Member States to register their national eIDs, but the Commission hopes that many Member States will chose to do this.

The Commission and EU Member States have proven that cross border mutual recognition of eIdentification works, through the STORK project involving 17 Member States

Δευτέρα, 8 Οκτωβρίου 2012

Privacy and Emerging Technologies


International Conference of the PRESCIENT Project – Call for abstracts

27 – 28 November 2012
Fraunhofer Forum Berlin, Germany
Deadline for abstracts is 10 October 2012

A universal feature of modern public life is the invasion of privacy that occurs every day and in a variety of forms. Invasive surveillance activities are carried out in the name of preventing terrorism and stopping fraud. Crime control has become synonymous with surveillance technologies, information technologies and databases. The boundaries of public and private life have become blurred, and privacy has become compromised in the name of protecting the public. At the same time, users of social networks and Web 2.0 services voluntarily give away their information – supposedly to other users, but whether they know it or not, they are also giving it to companies and whoever is interested in the data freely available on the Web. Google and Facebook’s power are being discussed more and more in the media, opening up a discourse about companies and citizens’ handling of personal information.

Despite numerous legislative frameworks designed to protect privacy, rapid technological advances in various technological fields (the Internet, surveillance, biometrics, genomics, neurotechnology) have meant that the law often falls behind technological developments. Legislation is frequently designed as principles, rather than to fit specific technologies. Furthermore, the extent to which legislation is enforced or is enforceable varies.

The idea of a right to privacy has been a long-debated issue. For some, privacy protection can only occur through the development of transparent standards; for others, privacy is already an outdated concept. Attempts to ensure privacy protection have focused on “data” and legal frameworks. More recently, privacy-enhancing technologies have become an important technological advance, although they have not been widely adopted by the online community. It is widely acknowledged that existing legal frameworks fall short in terms of impacting on organisational practices. The question then arises: how can privacy be protected in the future and how can the protection keep up with the dynamic technological developments?

In recent years, we have seen attempts to design a process that will allow the assessment and management of possible ethical and privacy risks. The core elements in this process are “privacy and ethical impact assessments” as a tool to systematically identify the risks of scientific developments and emerging technologies in their early stages. The other element is “privacy by design”, so far practically still an under defined concept to take the non-technical requirements for privacy into account already at the beginning of a development cycle. This has to be embedded in a future methodology for risk management.

The EC-funded PRESCIENT project is hosting an international conference in Berlin to provide a forum for the discussion of new approaches to assess the ethical and privacy impacts of emerging technologies. New approach need to be more clearly specified and informed by current research on privacy, data protection, innovation and foresight studies.

Topics of interest include the following:

Privacy, ethical and surveillance impact assessments
Innovation (in the context of emerging technologies) and trade-offs against social equity
Ethical issues raised by emerging technologies
Privacy by design
Foresight re emerging technologies and how foresight can help reduce unintended consequences
Designing scenarios for the analysis of emerging technologies
The (in)adequacies of existing legal frameworks in addressing the social impacts of emerging technologies
Regulatory capture
The power of large corporations to avoid or evade regulatory controls re emerging technologies
Key challenges facing regulators in the face of emerging technologies
Etc.

For more information see: PRESCIENT Project – Call for abstracts