Blog Post

Aiden Scott

Zero-rating is a practice that occurs when ISP’s allow consumers to visit certain websites, or use certain apps without impacting their monthly data limits. Companies such as T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon have all been part of a yearlong investigation that has been conducted by the FCC. The FCC noted that AT&T and Verizon’s approaches to zero-rating pose a particular threat to net neutrality because the companies choose to exempt their own services from counting against subscriber’s monthly data limits. AT&T has attempted to defend what it calls its “Sponsored Data service” by stating that it offers the same terms to all businesses that want to participate.Similarly, Comcast has also come under fire by giving its Stream TV service a significant connectivity advantage over other programs. While Comcast grants its service higher connectivity through a dedicated line in its customer’s cable connection, the issue that still worries consumer advocates such as Public knowledge is that allowing ISP’s to treat certain websites, and apps differently will ultimately be harmful to the consumer.

See Brian Fung,  The FCC is Dropping its Probe Into Internet Providers Over This Controversial Practice, Wash Post, (Feb. 3, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/03/the-government-is-dropping-its-probe-into-a-controversial-practice-by-your-internet-provider/?utm_term=.a803c74f6d90

Annie Millar

In the 21st century news reporters rely heavily on technology. Computers and cellphones are the tools required to get information to the public as fast as possible. Without the opportunity to send out information quickly, reporters would be at a disadvantage. But, reporters face issues when waltzing into a federal court house.

Mike Isaac experienced this first hand when he excitedly walked into a courtroom in Dallas, Texas. Stopped by a United States Marshal, Isaac’s continuous twitter feed of Mark Zuckerberg’s time on the stand skidded to a halt. Mr. Zuckerberg was involved in a $2 billion intellectual property lawsuit for the theft of virtual reality technology and Isaac was driven to tweet the details of his testimony as quickly as possible.

Little did Isaac know, “[f]ederal courts have rather strict rules around electronics and recording devices inside courtrooms, the laws of which go back much further than some of the software and services we use to broadcast news today.”

As a result, this issue demonstrates the age old battle; old customs versus budding technology. It is clear that federal courtrooms do not want live streams, videos, or photographs taken by reporters in the courtroom. It is also clear that reporters want full access to trial, as well as the ability to inform the public in real time. As it currently stands, the federal courts are clearly winning.

As an intern in a federal district courthouse this past summer, I saw issues of this nature first hand. The entrances were littered with signs, indicating cell phones were strictly prohibited. Additionally United States Marshals were continuously monitoring the courtrooms to make sure orders were not violated.

Being a budding lawyer, as well as a person who relies heavily on technology, I understand both sides of the argument. The question then becomes, will the courts change their ways, or will the old school pad and paper continue to be essential for reporters in the courtroom.
Mike Isaac, A Trial and a Twitterstorm: On Live-Tweeting From a Federal Courthouse, The New York Times (Jan. 24, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/insider/a-trial-and-a-twitterstorm-on-live-tweeting-from-a-federal-courthouse.html.

William Salage

On January 18, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] announced two new draft guidance on medical product communications.[1] The purpose of the drafts is to help provide clarity for medical product companies, as well as other interested parties, on FDA’s current thinking and recommendations for a few different types of communications about medical products. Specifically, the drafts seeks to answer two common questions amongst the manufacturing community: (1) when off-label marketing is considered free speech; and (2) when should such communications, whether they are directed at doctors, insurers or the public be considered in violation of the law or US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.[2] The release of the memo and new guidance follows a two-day meeting in November on off-label communications in which the FDA examined the possibility for less regulation despite recent court decisions adverse to the FDA’s official position.[3]

The first draft guidance document entitled: ““Drug and Device Manufacturer Communications with Payors, Formulary Committees, and Similar Entities,” explains the FDA’s current thinking and recommendations on firms’ communication of health care economic information (HCEI) about approved drugs under section 502(a) of the FD&C Act, which was recently amended by the 21st Century Cures Act.” [4] The draft also provides the FDA’s recommendations regarding firms’ communications to payors about investigational drugs and devices that are not yet approved or cleared for any use by the FDA.

The second draft guidance entitled, “Medical Product Communications That Are Consistent With the FDA-Required Labeling,” explains the FDA’s position about firms’ medical product communications that include data and information that are not contained in their products’ FDA-required labeling, but that concern the approved or cleared uses of their products.[5]

 

[1] Food & Drug Admin., Statement from FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, M.D. announcing new draft guidances on medical product communications (2017), http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/ Newsroom/ PressAnnouncements/ucm537371.htm (last visited Jan. 27, 2017).

[2] Zachary Brennan, Truthful and Non-Misleading: FDA Looks to Clarify Policies on Medical Product Communications, Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society (Jan. 18, 2017), http://www.raps.org/Regulatory-Focus/News/2017/01/18/26628/Truthful-and-Non-Misleading-FDA-Looks-to-Clarify-Policies-on-Medical-Product-Communications/

[3] Brennan, supra note 2; See e.g. Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 119 F. Supp. 3d 196 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (granting Amarin’s application for a preliminary injunction allowing for the company to engage in truthful and non-misleading speech promoting the off-label use of Vascepa).

[4] Food & Drug Admin., Statement from FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, M.D. announcing new draft guidances on medical product communications (2017), http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/ Newsroom/ PressAnnouncements/ucm537371.htm (last visited Jan. 27, 2017).

[5] Id.

Samuel Miller

In a case originating from the United Kingdom, a shopkeeper pled not guilty to charges of circumventing copyright and anti-piracy laws by selling pre-loaded software which allows users to watch video streams of TV shows and other media. With the advent of these types of devices, which include other popular devices such as Roku, Amazon Fire Stick, and Apple TV, users can download and stream media content; however, in places like the United Kingdom, these services have been used to watch movies, TV shows, live TV, and even Pay-Per-View events without paying for the service.[i] According to the website engadget, “Over in the UK, the authorities raided Brian Thompson’s Cut Price Tomo TV’s and have charged him with two offenses under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.”[ii] This matter is believed to be one of the first cases to deal with the sale of these pre-loaded devices.

Mr. Thompson, who has been charged with two offenses under section 296ZB of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, seeks clarity on the rule, specifically as it pertains to individuals who sell these devices with pre-loaded software, as opposed to DIY users at home. Under section 296ZB, “A person commits an offense if he…sells or lets for hire, any device, product or component which is primarily designed, produced, or adapted for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of effective technological measures.”[iii] According to Mr. Thompson, “If I am found guilty and the court rules that I am breaking the law selling these boxes, I want to know what that means for people buying and selling mobile phones or laptops because the software is available for all of them.”[iv] While the problem does not appear to be as widespread in the United States as it is in the United Kingdom, this case has the potential to establish significant legal precedent as it pertains to this ever-growing platform.

[i] ‘Pirate’ Kodi Box Seller Enters “Not Guilty” Plea in Landmark Case, TorrentFreak (2017), https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-kodi-box-seller-enters-not-guilty-plea-landmark-trial/ (last visited Feb 2, 2017).

[ii] Richard Lawler, ‘Fully loaded’ Kodi box seller pleads not guilty Engadget (2017), https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/27/fully-loaded-kodi-box-seller-pleads-not-guilty/ (last visited Feb 2, 2017).

[iii] ‘Pirate’ Kodi Box Seller Enters “Not Guilty” Plea in Landmark Case, TorrentFreak (2017), https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-kodi-box-seller-enters-not-guilty-plea-landmark-trial/ (last visited Feb 2, 2017).

[iv] Jane Wakefield, Not guilty plea in landmark Kodi box trial BBC News (2017), http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38769045 (last visited Feb 2, 2017).

Gurshamsheer Kailey

Scientists have successfully grown human stem cells in pig embryos making it possible, in the future, to develop human organs in animals for transplant. Stem cells from patient’s skin would be used to grow the desired organ in an animal and later harvested and transplanted into the patient’s body. Chimeras, animals composed of two genomes would be used for implanting human stem cells. Use of patient’s own cells would reduce the risk of immune rejection. Many technical and ethical barriers remain to be overcome.

To achieve this goal, researchers need to engineer pigs that cannot make the organ of interest, thus allowing the human stem cells to construct that organ. The pig will supply only blood vessels and nerves which will make it easier to be replaced by the recipient’s cells upon transplant. If the immune system does reject the organ, researchers will have to come up a way to humanize pig’s vasculature genes to be transplanted with the organ.

This recent success is a small step in a process that will take several years to develop. Regarding ethical concerns surrounding chimera, scientists are certain that it could be addressed.

 

Nicholas Wade, New Prospects for Growing Human Replacement Organs in Animals, N.Y. Times ( Jan. 26, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/chimera-stemcells-organs.html

Ashley Menard

When Donald Trump was elected as the President of the United States, there has been growing concern surrounding his infamous Twitter account. Particularly, many are concerned about the account getting hacked by bad actors. Recently, according to a man who identifies himself online as WauchulaGhost, the president is vulnerable to hackers because of a basic Twitter security setting that he has not enabled.[1] This vulnerability is due to the current setting for the account, which allows anyone to click on “forgot password,” and type in “@POTUS.”[2] The next screen says “we found the following information associated with your account” and gives a partially redacted email address to which it will send a password recovery link.[3] According to WauchulaGhost, being able to fill in the missing letters and guess one’s email address is the first step hackers take when trying to breach an account, which is not difficult to do for most hackers.[4] The next step would be to gain access to the email, typically by using tactics such as malware, apps that guess multiple passwords at once, or using known information about a person to trick them into sharing their password.[5]

While WachulaGhost does not wish to hack the President, his intention is to warn the President that his security settings may leave him vulnerable to other hackers.[6] WachulaGhost is an experienced hacker who has hacked over 500 Islamic State accounts, replacing content with images of porn and gay pride messages.[7]

WachulaGhost’s warning solidified many people’s fear that gaining access to the President’s Twitter may become a reality. A hacking of the Twitter account can have far-reaching consequences, even if that breach is temporary.[8] One consequence may be economical. On January 5, 2017, Toyota shares plummeted within minutes of a negative tweet from Trump, causing the company to lose approximately $1.2 billion in value.[9] If a hacker were to tweet something similar from the account, similar consequences could occur. Another consequence may be national security. Tweets coming from the President’s Twitter account could instigate feuds with other countries, world leaders or political figures.

In order to ensure safety on the President’s Twitter account, WachulaGhost recommends that the President should use the security setting that prompts one to type in one’s phone number or email in order to reset the password.[10] Hopefully the President and his staff heed these warnings and ensure that the President’s Twitter is safer than what it is currently.

 

[1] Laurie Segall, Hacker to Trump: Fix your security settings on Twitter, CnnTech, (Jan. 24, 2017, 6:45 P.M.), http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/24/technology/trump-white-house-twitter-security/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Segall, supra note 1.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Rachel Revesz, Toyota loses $1.2bn in value five minutes after Donald Trump’s tweet, Independent, (Jan. 5, 2017), http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/toyota-12bn-value-plummet-shares-stock-market-donald-trump-tweet-move-mexico-tax-a7512096.html.

[10] Segall, supra note 1.

Nick Dellefave

The Supreme Court is set to decide a case which may put an end to the widespread practice of forum shopping in patent cases. On December 14, 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in TC Heartland v. Kraft to consider the question of whether the current patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), is the “sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions.”

Although predicting Supreme Court decisions is far from an exact science, many commentators have speculated that the Court is likely to reverse the Federal Circuit’s decision, and thus, impose limits on where patent infringement cases may be filed. Driving this speculation is the fact that, on grants of certiorari since 1999, the Court has reversed the Federal Circuit’s decisions in nearly 75% of the time, often unanimously. Furthermore, there has been a trend in recent years of the Supreme Court handing down decisions that limit plaintiffs’ access to federal courts.

Forum shopping is a prevalent practice in patent litigation. In 2015, nearly 65% of all patent infringement cases were filed in only five district courts, and 44% were filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The Eastern District of Texas has received much attention for the cottage industry of trial lawyers that has been propped up by the venue’s status as the most active patent forum in the country. Plaintiff-friendly local rules and even friendlier juries have made small communities like Marshall and Tyler hotbeds for patent litigation. Marshall’s courthouse has become well-known for its ice skating rink, which was donated by Samsung, a frequent defendant in patent cases.

Any change making forum shopping less prevalent is likely to gain support from the most frequent patent defendants. Amicus briefs were recently submitted by groups of technology companies and corporate financiers in support of the petitioner. If the Court does reverse, prominent patent forums like East Texas are likely to see a sharp decline in the number of cases filed, while districts where many companies are headquartered, such as the District of Delaware, Northern District of California, and Southern District of New York are likely to see more patent filings.

Justin Farooq

On January 18, 2017 a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court looked to be amenable to arguments by a rock band that is challenging the federal law that bans the registration of disparaging trademarks.

The petitioners in this case are the Slants, an Asian-American band who claims the ban violates the First Amendment. According to reports by the Washington Post, New York Times and USA Today, members of the Supreme Court looked skeptical of the law during oral arguments.  The reaction is likely good for the Washington Redskins, a NFL team whose trademark was revoked due to the fact that its name is disparaging to Native Americans.  The Slants assert that they are using the name to regain an offensive term about Asians and use it “as a badge of pride.”

[1] Debra Cassens Weiss, Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Law Barring Registration of Disparaging Trademarks, ABA Journal (Jan. 18, 2007, 4:44 PM CST), http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_appears_skeptical_of_law_barring_registration_of_disparaging.

[2] See Robert Barnes, Can Disparaging Trademarks be Denied? The Supreme Court is Skeptical, The Washington Post (Jan. 18, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-skeptical-of-governments-withholding-disparaging-trademarks/2017/01/18/b97b6752-dd05-11e6-918c-99ede3c8cafa_story.html?utm_term=.047681dd22df.

[3] Adam Liptak, Justices Appear Willing to Protect Offensive Trademarks, New York Times (Jan. 18, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/justices-appear-willing-to-protect-offensive-trademarks.html?smid=pl-share.

[4] Richard Wolf, Justices Dubious About Government Denials of ‘Derogatory’ Trademarks, USA Today (Jan. 18, 2017, 3:31 PM), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/18/supreme-court-trademark-slants-redskins/96720748/.

[5] Tony Mauro, In ‘Slants’ Case, Justices Skeptical of Ban on Disparaging Trademarks, Law.com (Jan. 18, 2017), http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017/01/18/in-slants-case-justices-skeptical-of-ban-on-disparaging-trademarks/?slreturn=20170027193816.

[6] Weiss, supra note 1.

Justin Farooq

On January 18, 2017 a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court looked to be amenable to arguments by a rock band that is challenging the federal law that bans the registration of disparaging trademarks.[1]

The petitioners in this case are the Slants, an Asian-American band who claims the ban violates the First Amendment. According to reports by the Washington Post[2], New York Times[3] and USA Today[4], members of the Supreme Court looked skeptical of the law during oral arguments.  The reaction is likely good for the Washington Redskins, a NFL team whose trademark was revoked due to the fact that its name is disparaging to Native Americans.[5]  The Slants assert that they are using the name to regain an offensive term about Asians and use it “as a badge of pride.”[6]

[1] Debra Cassens Weiss, Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Law Barring Registration of Disparaging Trademarks, ABA Journal (Jan. 18, 2007, 4:44 PM CST), http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_appears_skeptical_of_law_barring_registration_of_disparaging.

[2] See Robert Barnes, Can Disparaging Trademarks be Denied? The Supreme Court is Skeptical, The Washington Post (Jan. 18, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-skeptical-of-governments-withholding-disparaging-trademarks/2017/01/18/b97b6752-dd05-11e6-918c-99ede3c8cafa_story.html?utm_term=.047681dd22df.

[3] Adam Liptak, Justices Appear Willing to Protect Offensive Trademarks, New York Times (Jan. 18, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/justices-appear-willing-to-protect-offensive-trademarks.html?smid=pl-share.

[4] Richard Wolf, Justices Dubious About Government Denials of ‘Derogatory’ Trademarks, USA Today (Jan. 18, 2017, 3:31 PM), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/18/supreme-court-trademark-slants-redskins/96720748/.

[5] Tony Mauro, In ‘Slants’ Case, Justices Skeptical of Ban on Disparaging Trademarks, Law.com (Jan. 18, 2017), http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017/01/18/in-slants-case-justices-skeptical-of-ban-on-disparaging-trademarks/?slreturn=20170027193816.

[6] Weiss, supra note 1.

Lindsey Round

Regardless of political beliefs, scientific findings show that the Earth reached record high temperatures in 2016, exceeding previous records set in 2015 and 2014.[1] Three consecutive years of setting record temperatures is something that should at least cause individuals to question why this is happening. Scientists have attributed the increasing temperatures to both the El Niño as well as increasing levels of carbon monoxide and other greenhouse gases.[2] Even though El Niño has officially ended and scientists do not expect 2017 to be warmer than 2016, many species of plants and animals are in danger at the current temperatures.[3] However, this is not the first time in history that we have seen record setting temperatures three years in a row. In fact, in 1939, 1940, and 1941 the Earth temperatures reached what were record high temperatures at the time.[4] However, due to trending increasing temperatures on Earth, the record reached in 1941 is now only the 37th warmest year here on Earth.[5] So, while 2017 may not be warmer than 2016, the overall trend is indisputable science and it is imperative for everyone to take note of this change.

 

[1] Justin Gillis, Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year, N.Y. Times (Jan. 18, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-record.html.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.