On the world wide web, there is a common struggle for publicity amongst businesses. Some of the most common techniques for business exposure is having a unique name business name. Ever wonder why your uniquely trademarked business isn’t getting the attention it needs? It might be because advertising markets are stealing your business brand.
In most cases, when using an appropriate search engine provider, a user just has to enter the company name to find a company and their website. Here, the business is shown as being related to another company by this search engine advertiser offering free company website submissions. The search engine provider is not returning the correct URL with the correct company name entered by the user at all.
Post-pandemic, many search engine promotion firms are struggling to make businesses anew. Even businesses that have no experience in internet advertising and marketing are getting a shot at breaking into the field. But don’t be fooled by their statements that they are not controlling your business rankings on the internet. Many of these businesses are using your company brand name to get business exposure.
Big business trends in advertising may seem legal, but if someone is using your trademarked business name to start their business, get business exposure or prevent business, this can be considered trademark infringement.
The threat of artificial intelligence rears its head as recent phenomena targeted toward courtroom proceedings. Its story, covered by DailyMail.com on September 22, 2017, boasts scientific design of “a machine-learning algorithm that can accurately predict over 70 percent of Supreme Court decisions. “
So how much of this technology is artificial intelligence and a threat to society? We can assess this based on previous courtroom decisions. In 1977, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated and remanded decision in Gardner v. Florida. “The Petitioner was denied due process of law when the death sentence was imposed by the Florida Supreme Court, at least in part, on the basis of information that he had no opportunity to deny or explain,” stated Justice Stevens. The information utilized in the case was an informational report which held information of which Gardner was unaware.
On July 13, 2016, a similar report was utilized for sentencing of Eric M. Loomis and evaluated on appeal by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The report was comprised of a proprietary algorithm utilized by the COMPAS system which scales violence and recidivism risk principles as part of case triage. In its opinion, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated, “The court of appeals certified the specific question of whether the use of a COMPAS risk assessment at sentencing violates a defendant’s right to due process, either because the proprietary nature of COMPAS prevents defendants from challenging the COMPAS assessment’s scientific validity, or because COMPAS assessments take gender into account.” The court determined, “if used properly, observing the limitations and cautions set forth herein, a circuit court’s consideration of a COMPAS risk assessment at sentencing does not violate a defendant’s right to due process,” further explaining its reasoning for decision was supported by other independent factors; thus, the risk assessment use was not a determinate.