Blog Post

Samantha Cirillo

Concerned about a children’s doll recording day-to-day conversations, the Federal Network Agency announced a ban on the latest interactive doll, “Cayla”. The ban was centered around a concern of hacker’s ability to steal personal information by accessing Cayla’s recordings over an insecure Bluetooth connection. The Cayla doll was manufactured by a company based out of the United States, Genesis Toys. The doll is made to interact with children by recording conversations and transmitting them to a computer software company, Nuance Communications. This is not the first time Germany has banned an interactive doll. “Hello Barbie” was also banned and nicknamed “Stasi-Barbie” due to its voice recording capabilities.

Similar consumer complaints against Cayla were also filed in the United States. The complaints filed with the Federal Trade Commission alleged that Genesis Toys have violated children’s privacy. One complaint stated that “these voice recordings are stored and used for purposes beyond providing for the toy’s functionality”.

See Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura, The Bright-Eyed Talking Doll That Just Might Be a Spy, The New York Times (Feb. 17, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/technology/cayla-talking-doll-hackers.html.

Cecilia Santostefano

Back in December, an artificial intelligence start-up known as Argo AI developed, focusing on developing autonomous vehicle technology.[1] Now, it has gained the support of one of the oldest automobile manufacturers in the country: Ford.[2]

Over the course of the next five years, Ford will be making a $1 billion investment in the start-up, making this Ford’s biggest effort to move into the self-driving industry.[3] Argo AI will function as a subsidiary of Ford, with Ford maintaining its independence as the majority shareholder.[4] Ford is reported to view mobility services as potentially more profitable than its traditional business of making and selling cars.[5] The autonomous vehicle is scheduled for release in 2021.[6]

[1] Mike Isaac and Neal E. Boudette, Ford to Invest $1 Billion in Artificial Intelligence Start-Up, NY Times, (Feb. 10, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/technology/ford-invests-billion-artificial-intelligence.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Ftechnology.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Stefan Ogbac, Ford Announces Investment in Artificial Intelligence Company Argo AI, Motor Trend, (Feb. 12, 2017), http://www.motortrend.com/news/ford-announces-investment-artificial-intelligence-company-argo-ai/.

[5] Isaac, supra note 1.

[6] Ogbac, supra note 3.

Brittany Charles 

Take a walk around Washington D.C. and you might see something you never noticed before: an influx of technology companies in the area. It is true that Washington D.C. is the mecca for individuals seeking to work within all facets of American politics, from federal government to non-profit organizations. However, the historically government-oriented city is seeing a dramatic shift in its professional demographics.

In 2013, Forbes Magazine declared D.C. the “No. 1 New Tech Hot Spot” in the country[1]. Furthermore, Forbes has also consistently ranked D.C. on the “No. 1 New Tech Hot Spot” and “10 Top Software Hotspots” lists[2].In 2014, one year later, over 1,000 tech start-ups called D.C. home, challenging the notion that Silicon Valley was the undisputed king of all things tech[3]. More recently, large tech companies such as Google have all opened or expanded offices in the D.C. area[4]. While Silicon Valley remains the most concentrated area for tech companies, D.C. is quickly becoming the east coast capital of the technological boom[5].

The reason? It’s disputed. In 2012, D.C.’s local government officials begun implementing several measures to create the largest tech hub on the east coast within the city, including tax incentives for startups[6]. However, an increase in information technology, biotech and cybersecurity positions throughout the federal government has also drawn more techies to the area[7]. While experts dispute the rationale behind the growing technological sector in the city, it’s undisputable that D.C.’s mix of a highly educated populace, centrality to government and accessibility to the rest of the country makes it an attractive hub for the tech world. Silicon Valley may reign the U.S. tech sector, however, Washington D.C. is quickly becoming an east-coast solution for those interested in the industry without abandoning their coastline loyalties.

[1] America’s New Tech Hot Spots, Forbes, (Jan. 2013), https://www.forbes.com/pictures/edgl45eldd/no-1-washington-arlington-alexandria-dc-va-md-wv/#5b85c0474f12.

[2] Joel Kotkin, America’s Software and Tech Hotspots, Forbes, (Apr. 14, 2016 at 12:06), https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/04/14/americas-software-and-tech-hotspots/#40252ba0180f.

[3] Rebecca Sheir, Is D.C. Transforming From a Government Town Into A Tech Hub?, , Wamu, (Nov. 14, 2014), http://wamu.org/story/14/11/13/dc_going_from_a_government_town_to_tech_hub/.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7]Id.

Gurshamsheer Kailey

Ford Motor will invest in Argo AI, an artificial intelligence start-up formed in December. Ford Motor made an announcement of their plan to invest $ 1 billion in AI over the next five years. Argo AI will exclusively develop technology for self-driving cars for Ford first, and then license it to others.

Argo AI will be a subsidiary of Ford but will use its shares to lure robotics and engineering professionals from other companies. The company will have its roots in Silicon Valley. Ford now claims itself to be a provider of “mobility services” and sees these services to be more profitable that the business of making and selling cars. Mobility services have the potential to generate returns of around 20 percent, in comparison to 8 percent on making vehicles.

Ford is remaking its headquarters and main development center in Dearborn, Michigan. The automaker envisions the new campuses that will showcase green modes of transportation such as autonomous shuttles and electric bikes.

See Mike Isaac & Neal E. Boudette, Ford to Invest $1 Billion in Artificial Intelligence Start-Up, N.Y. Times (Feb. 10, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/technology/ford-invests-billion-artificial-intelligence.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Ftechnology.

Teal Johnson

DNA familial searching allows investigators to compare DNA from a crime scene with offender databases with parameters allowing for identification of people who are likely to be close relatives of the person who may have committed the crime.  Law enforcement officials say that results are more of a lead than a piece of evidence.

The familial searching was pioneered in Britain, helping in 2002 with its first conviction using the technique.  Since then the technique has been used more than a dozen times over the last ten years in the United States.  California was the first state to authorize the testing technique and Colorado followed in their footsteps the next year.  It has since been used in at least 8 other states.

The are some ethical issues that come with familial searching because of the potential misuse, especially in the hands of the government.  A review of more than 800 rape cases processed by the New York City medical examiner’s office found that DNA evidence was mishandled in dozens of cases.  Additionally, critics of the technique say that it would expand the use of DNA databases beyond the original intent.  Allowing searches of people who happen to be related to someone who has committed a crime disproportionately affects blacks and Hispanics because of the higher proportions of those groups in prisons.  Many argue that this is fundamentally against American core values.

Familial testing raises the question of whether it is limited by the Fourth Amendment’s equal protection clause.  Erin E. Murphy, a law professor at New York University states that the legal implications of familial testing have not been tested in the courts.  She said, “You shouldn’t have fewer civil rights because you’re related to someone who broke the law.”

The pleas of a father who had his daughter was murdered in Brooklyn last summer while on a jog have rejuvenated the fight in New York for allowing familial searching.  The case is unsolved and seems to be an ideal case to utilize familial searching because of the quantity of DNA found at the scene that was not the victim’s.

The DNA subcommittee of the New York State Commission on Forensic Science may vote on approval of familial searching a meeting on Feb. 10.  This would be followed by a 45 day period for public comment. Many New York law enforcement officials believe that trade-offs in civil liberties are minor with this technique, especially compared to with the potential to solve some challenging cases.

See Eli Rosenberg, Family DNA Searches Seen as Crime-Solving Tool, and Intrusion on Rights, N.Y. Times (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/nyregion/familial-dna-searching-karina-vetrano.html?_r=0.

Justin Farooq

The Midyear Meeting took place February 5, 2017 in Miami.  One of the most talked about events centered around five panelists at the “Legal Innovation 101” discussion.[1]  The consensus of five panelists’ message was simple: Catching up with legal technology is no longer a luxury in a tough market for legal services. While sorting through options may seem daunting at first, firms that embrace technology and new methods will be at a huge advantage.[2]  There are many new tools, methods, markets and models that can give law firms a leg up on the competition but lawyers must embrace them.[3]  It is important to remember that these new technologies are not intended to replace attorneys, but rather to augmentation technology that will allow a lawyer to increase production for the law firm.[4]  For example, here are two technology tools that are already paying off for lawyers:

        (1) ABA Blueprint, a service that offers back-office help to lawyers who say administrative tasks are cutting into their time practicing law, is aimed primarily at solo practitioners and attorneys in small firms.[5]

        (2) Lawhub offers members an extensive assortment of legal resources on a single page, for example case law, discussions, statutes, case preparation plans, marketing, finance and more are all available for New York State Bar members.[6]  Many believe that eventually this will replace bar web sites.[7]

 

[1] American Bar Association, ABA Midyear Meeting, http://www.americanbar.org/groups/departments_offices/meetings_travel_dept/midyear2017.html.

[2] American Bar Association, Legal Innovation 101: Get With the Program or Get Left Behind Experts Say During Midyear Meeting (Feb, 6, 2017, 12:28 PM), http://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2017/02/legal_innovation101.html.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

Brittany Charles

In early 2017, the battle between U.S. law enforcement agencies and major tech companies continues to rage on. In February, a Philadelphia Magistrate Judge, ruled against recent precedence, and ordered a Gmail provider to comply with a FBI warrant requesting emails of gmail users stored outside of the U.S.. Google relied on the recent precedence, claiming that turning over emails stored outside of the U.S. places non-U.S. citizens at risk for violations of privacy. However, the judge contended reviewing emails locally that were previously stored on foreign servers and transferred to U.S. servers, does not qualify as a seizure.

The recent precedence Google referred to was a case brought forth by Microsoft in 2016, where the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York held that Microsoft could not be forced to turn over emails stored in Dublin. The tech industry applauded the 2016 decision, but now the recent ruling has some tech giants concerned about their ability to comply with other country’s data protection and privacy laws. Law enforcement agencies throughout the U.S. send tens of thousands of warrants to tech companies requesting user’s information. Information that can be stored locally or abroad, for U.S. and non-U.S. citizens alike.

What is the silver lining for this particular ruling? It’s narrowly-tailored…in a way. In the 2016 ruling, Microsoft provided evidence that the information being sought was on foreign servers, however, Google presented no such evidence for this case. In theory, this decision is only enforcing the notion that if a tech company provides evidence of information being stored on foreign servers, that information would be protected. However, as the battle rages on and jurisdictions continue to render decisions that seemingly oppose one another, one thing is for certain: tech giants are going to need lawyers.

Google to Appeal Against Order to Hand Over User Emails Stored Outside U.S., The Guardian, (Feb. 6, 2017 at 5:41), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/06/google-gmail-to-appeal-against-order-to-hand-over-user-emails-stored-outside-us.

Annie Millar

Over the past twenty years, the Supreme Court has demonstrated an increased interest in hearing argument on intellectual property cases. That interest does not seem to be dwindling. As a result, there are five cases that you should be on the lookout for in 2017.

Case One: Racial Slurs in Trademarks: Acceptable or Unconstitutional?

The Lanham Act bars the use of disparaging terms, and on January 18th the Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether the name of an Asian-American rock band, The Slants, fell under that category. The issue falls on the issue of whether the disparaging terms exclusion is an impermissible restriction of the user’s freedom of speech. While the band members consider this term a badge of honor, the USPTO sees this as a racial slur.

Lee v. Tam, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 15-1293

Case Two: Forum Shopping for Filing Suit

Often times, depending on where suit is filed will have an effect on whether you win or lose. For example, in East Texas plaintiffs are heavily favored, and as a result 40 percent of U.S. patent lawsuits are filed. This case focuses on one main issue; whether to limit where patent suits may be filed.

TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 16-341

Case Three: Resale of Patented Products

The concept of the exhaustion doctrine is an essential part of patent law, which allows someone to do what they wish with something they purchased, such as resell the product. The court will take up the issue of how far this exhaustion doctrine reaches this year.

Products v. Lexmark, U.S. Supreme Court No. 15-1189

Case Four: Active Inducement

The Patent Act limits active inducement liability to those who export “all or substantially all” of the parts of a patented product to build or assemble that product abroad, likely at a reduced cost. This case addressed the issue: whether “substantially all” relates to the quantity of the product used, or the importance of the ingredients used.

Life Technologies v. Promega, Supreme Court No. 14-1538

Case Five: Argue Against the USPTO

Aqua Products, with an invention for a robotic pool cleaner, is arguing that the USPTO’s regulations governing the amendment of patent claims during inter partes review violates the America Invents Act by shifting the burden to the applicant to prove the amended claims were patent eligible. With the new regulations of the America Invents Act, it is likely issues such as these will continue to pop up.

In re Aqua Products, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 15-1177

Keep your eye on these cases in the Supreme Court this year, as they may alter the way we interpret intellectual property law in the United States.
The Fashion Law, The 5 Intellectual Property Cases that You Cannot Miss in 2017 (Jan. 10, 2017), http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/the-5-intellectual-property-cases-that-you-cannot-miss-in-2017.