Blog Post

By: Elle Nainstein

With 3D-printing technology on the rise, obtaining a gun may now be as easy as downloading one within the privacy of your own home. To do so, an individual could simply find blueprints for a firearm online, enter the schematics into a 3D printer, and within a matter of days, he or she would have their hands on a fully-functional plastic gun. Policymakers all over the country have been working to prevent this “under the table” method of acquiring firearms, expressing concerns over the fact that no background check is required to download the blueprints and no serial number would exist to trace the gun in the event that it is used to commit a crime.

In 2013, Cody Wilson, owner of the company Defense Distributed, created what is believed to be the first fully 3D-printed gun. After Wilson successfully tested the gun, he uploaded the blueprints to his website so that they would be made publicly available to anyone who might wish to build one. Under the Obama administration, the State Department ordered that the blueprints be taken down, asserting that Wilson’s publication of the blueprints constituted the exporting of weapons without a license. In 2015, Wilson sued the federal government, arguing that barring him from publishing the blueprints inhibited his First Amendment rights. When the case settled under the Trump administration in June 2018, Wilson was granted permission to move forward with publishing his 3D-printed gun blueprints beginning August 1, 2018.

Immediately following the announcement, nineteen states sued to block distribution of the blueprints. On July 31, 2018, US District Judge Robert Lasnik in Seattle issued a restraining order that halted Wilson’s plans to release 3D-printed gun designs online. On August 27, 2018, Judge Lasnik granted a motion for a preliminary injunction and extended the previous restraining order. “The court finds that the irreparable burdens on the private defendants’ First Amendment rights are dwarfed by the irreparable harms the states are likely to suffer if the existing restrictions are withdrawn and that, overall, the public interest strongly supports maintaining the status quo through the pendency of this litigation,” Lasnik wrote.

On August 28, 2018, Wilson announced he would begin selling the blueprints directly to people who want them. According to the ruling, “[r]egulation under the (law) means that the files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed, securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States.” Wilson said that while the preliminary injunction forbade him to share the files online for free, he interpreted the ruling as expressly allowing him to sell them. “Anyone who wants these files is going to get them. I’m gonna sell it to them, I’m gonna ship them. That began this morning,” Wilson said. “That will never be interrupted. The free exchange of these ideas will never be interrupted.”

Less than a month later, on September 25, 2018, Cody Wilson resigned from Defense Distributed after being detained and arrested in Taiwan. According to authorities, Wilson had fled the United States upon learning that he was being investigated for allegedly paying $500 to have sex with an underage girl in Austin, Texas. Wilson was subsequently deported back to the United States and is currently facing sexual assault charges. If found guilty, he faces up to twenty years in prison. Wilson has since been released on bail but has yet to issue a public statement on the matter. As of today, it is unclear how his resignation or the criminal charge will impact Defense Distributed and its role in the debate over 3D-printed guns.

Citations:

Charles Duan, Copyright Law Could Stop 3-D Printed Guns. Should It?, Lawfare (Aug. 31, 2018, 9:23 AM), https://www.lawfareblog.com/copyright-law-could-stop-3-d-printed-guns-should-it.

Eric Levenson and Keith Allen, Judge blocks distribution of 3D-printed gun blueprints until case is resolved, CNN (Aug. 27, 2018, 7:41 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/27/us/3d-guns-judge-ruling/index.html.

Jim Vertuno and Martha Bellisle, 3D-printed gun maker says he’s selling blueprints, despite court order against him, USA Today (Aug. 28, 2018, 7:59 PM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/08/28/3-d-printed-guns-cody-wilson-selling-plans-despite-ruling/1127628002/.

Eric Levenson, Maker of 3D-printed guns begins selling blueprints, despite court order, CNN (Aug. 28, 2018, 3:45 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/us/3d-printed-guns-cody-wilson-blueprint/index.html.

Paul J. Weber, Cody Wilson, 3-D Printed Gun Advocate Has Been Jailed in the U.S., Time (Sept. 23, 2018), http://time.com/5404123/cody-wilson-3d-gun-advocate-arrest/

3D-printed gun pioneer bailed after sex assault charge, BBC News (Sept. 24, 2018), https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45625275.

 

By: Nolan Hale

Imagine not knowing how long to cook some type of food, let’s say a potato. You are so busy doing something and you do not want to look it up on your phone or computer. So, you put the potato in the microwave and say, “Alexa, please heat up this potato”. The rest is up to the microwave.

Amazon has recently made this possible in creating a voice-controlled microwave incorporating the “Alexa” technology. One must simply tell the microwave what is in the microwave, “Alexa” will have a conversation with you regarding the weight of the food, and the microwave will heat it up. Additionally, Amazon created a voice-activated clock that can set reminders and timers. However, issues regarding privacy remain in the new voice-controlled microwave.

In May 2018, a woman said her Amazon “Alexa” recorded her private conversation and sent it to a random contact. She felt invaded when a person from 176 miles away received audio files of recordings from inside her house. While Amazon stated that was an extremely rare occasion, Amazon does not even seem to be addressing it. On September 20, 2018, Amazon held a press event introducing the Alexa-powered microwave and Alexa gadget in cars. During the press event, the Amazon executive did not mention any privacy concerns in their products.

There are likely more products coming out that can be voice activated like ovens, televisions, and possibly every appliance in the house. There will likely be remote ways to activate things in your home through voice-command technology. Amazon needs to address these privacy concerns because as technology continues to grow, privacy concerns are bound to as well.

Citations:

Heather Kelly, Amazon wants Alexa everywhere, CNN (last visited Sep. 22, 2018), https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/22/technology/alexa-everywhere/index.html.

Jason Del Rey, Amazon’s blockbuster Alexa event made zero mention of privacy concerns–and that may say more about us than about them, Recode (last visited Sep 20, 2018), https://www.recode.net/2018/9/20/17883538/amazon-alexa-microwave-privacy-security.

Gary Horcher, Woman says her Amazon device recorded private conversation, sent out to random contact, Kiro 7 (last visited May 25, 2018), https://www.kiro7.com/www.kiro7.com/news/local/woman-says-her-amazon-device-recorded-private-conversation-sent-it-out-to-random-contact/755507974.

By: Laura O’Brien

In 2004, Congress passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, requiring food labels to include the eight major food allergens: milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans. Prior to the Act, many foods were mislabeled, or failed to label one or more of these allergens. By mislabeling, or failing to label foods, individuals with allergies were vulnerable to allergic reactions to seemingly safe foods. Allergies, to food, bees, and other common allergens, put approximately 30,000 individuals in the hospital every year due to anaphylactic reactions. Individuals with severe allergic reactions rely on EpiPen’s to provide relief from symptoms. An EpiPen contains epinephrine, otherwise known as adrenaline. One injection from an EpiPen allows for 20 to 30 minutes after injection to suppress the allergic reaction and allow for an individual to reach medical care. Typically, individuals with allergies carry two EpiPen’s to offer either a backup, or an extra 30 minutes.

Pfizer and Mylan, the drug maker and distributor, came under heat for increasing the price to the life-saving device. Pfizer and Mylan were then subject to several lawsuits arising out of the price hike. Pfizer and Mylan have lacked competition in the EpiPen market, essentially having a monopoly in the market. By having a monopoly, the drug companies are able to charge a higher price, and consumers have no option other than to pay what is required. Unlike many other pharmaceuticals, EpiPen’s consist of non-patented epinephrine and a patented injector, the patent is owned by Mylan. Previously, the FDA wouldn’t approve any EpiPen alternative that had a different injector than the one patented by Mylan. As a result, no other pharmaceutical companies were able to produce an alternative that would be approved by the FDA.

Recently, the FDA has announced its commitment to expedite the approval process for alternative treatments. As a result, the FDA recently approved an auto-injector from the Israel based pharmaceutical company, Teva, creating competition for Pfizer and Mylan. Although Mylan introduced a generic EpiPen in 2016, this introduction did not create competition between companies, allowing Mylan and Pfizer to continue to sell both products at a high price. The FDA hopes the introduction of competition into the market will allow for lower prices, and more accessibility to those who need the life-saving drug.

In 2017, Mylan recalled several lots of EpiPen’s due to potential defects. The recall resulted in the FDA reprimanding Pfizer for failing to investigate complaints they hade received about EpiPen failures, some of which resulted in death. More recently, a shortage of EpiPen’s has continued, causing concern for parents of children with allergies going back to school who can’t seem to track down any pharmacies that are stocked with EpiPen’s.

Although the approval of the generic gives hope for those who need EpiPen’s and haven’t been able to afford or find them, the approval will not allow immediate relief. The shortage will continue until manufacturing and distribution can catch up with the need.

 

Cites:

Sonja Haller, How parents can find a lifesaving EpiPen for their kids during current shortage, USA Today (Aug. 22, 2018), https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/2018/08/22/find-epipen-parents-can-try-3-things-find-one-during-shortage/1065096002/.

Nathan Bomey, FDA approves first generic EpiPen in blow to Mylan, USA Today (Aug. 08, 2018), https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/08/16/generic-epipen-teva-pharmaceuticals-mylan/1010118002/.

Avik Roy, FDA’s New Generic EpiPen Approval Exemplifies Progress on Drug Price Reform, Forbes (Aug. 23, 2018), https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/08/23/fdas-new-generic-epipen-approval-exemplifies-progress-on-drug-price-reform/#.

Joseph Walker, EpiPen Shortage Hits Back-to-School Season, The Wall Street Journal (Aug. 25, 2018), https://www.wsj.com/articles/epipen-shortage-hits-back-to-school-season-1535202001.

FDA approves Teva’s generic of Mylan’s EpiPen, 25 No. 14 Westlaw J. Med. Devices 08 (2018).

 

By: Dejaih Johnson

The legal system is primarily reactive in its processes. Whether through common law to prevent the reoccurrence of a certain act, or trials to determine the culpability of one accused of committing a certain act, much of the legwork is done after commission. However, what if we could get ahead of this and identify those prone to committing crimes before the commission? For ages we have marveled with the criminal mind, making countless attempts to understand what makes these individuals tick, and a team at Cornell University may have begun taking steps in the right direction.

Recently, Valerie Reyna and her team have made great strides with a study of self-reporting criminal and non-criminal tendency individuals. The team has examined the neurological correlations between risk-preferences and criminality in adults. In part one, participants were offered a choice between $20 guaranteed, or a coin flip to gamble for double or nothing. Results found that individuals with higher criminal tendencies chose the gamble, arguing that $40 is more than $20. In part two, participants were given an option between losing $20, or flipping a coin to lose $40 or lose nothing. Those with lower criminal tendencies chose to gamble, conversely, those with higher criminal-tendencies chose a sure loss over the gamble.

These results offer a much different approach to understanding the criminal mind – a cognitive approach. In particular, Reyna’s study illustrates that it may be possible to identify and deter future high criminal-tendency individuals before a commission. Perhaps the most important takeaway from this study comes from Reyna’s team monitoring brain activation during completion of the tasks. After reviewing the results, the team found greater activation in temporal and parietal cortices for individuals that had higher criminal tendencies. These two areas of the brain are mostly involved with cognitive analysis and reasoning. This suggests that higher risk-takers utilize these two areas to maximize their winnings and minimize their loss at all costs. Those that are ordinary risk-takers showed brain activity in the amygdala and striatal areas, commonly associated with emotional reactivity and reward motivation. This implies that ordinary risk-takers are allured by the sure winnings of $20 and emotionally deterred from the guaranteed loss, favoring the possibility of losing nothing.

Moving onward, this study further illustrates that research into the criminal mind is important in creating policy. Reyna’s study demonstrates that the criminal mind and criminal reasoning is not always the same. Therefore, public policy surrounding the legal system should reflect this. Reyna argues that this study provides a greater understanding of brain behavior and can result in a more just system to protect both the public and the rights of the individual.

Beyond the reactive implications, the team at Cornell has provided an understanding of how to prevent criminal behavior proactively. When asked about the consequences of her study, Reyna stated, “I think this can really give us insight into how to help young people.” For example, she continued, this may help distinguish those who will and will not become criminals, in addition to helping us understand their behaviors and how to rehabilitate them. No matter which way you look at the results, it is readily apparent that studies like that conducted by Reyna and her team significantly contribute towards understanding criminality and the criminal mind. It is expected that this will excite new, novel research into the topic.

Cite:

Does neuroscience hold the key to understanding the criminal mind?, ScienceDaily (Sept. 5, 2018), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180905140235.htm.

By Erin Kelly

As a small brewery in California, Seven Stills Brewery & Distillery (“Seven Stills”) uses creative tactics to conjure up business. Among their marketing strategies is intentional trademark infringement. On July 12, 2018, Seven Still posted a picture to the social media platform, Instagram. The post displayed the In-N-Stout beer can design, advertising the upcoming release of their new Neapolitan milkshake stout. Seven Still was under no impression that the popular burger joint, In-N-Out, would allow the blatant trademark infringement. “We were pretty certain it wouldn’t fly,” a later Seven Stills Instagram posted explained. “If we really wanted to get away with it, we’d hide the art until release, and be sold out before anyone complained.”

In the original picture posted of the In-N-Stout beer can design, Seven Stills tagged In-N-Out’s Instagram account, just to be certain it was seen. In-N-Out was quick to respond with a cease and desist letter, requesting Seven Stills to refrain from further use of In-N-Out’s trademarks. Seven Stills seized the opportunity it hoped to create all along – major publicity. The brewery posted the cease and desist letter to Instagram, highlighting In-N-Out’s clever use of brewing puns throughout the letter. Seven Stills complied with the letter and redesigned the cans and the beer name to remove any relation from In-N-Out. Capitalizing on the attention, disguised as a symbol of their comradery, Seven Stills purchased 100 burgers from In-N-Out to give away to the first 100 customers that purchased their new stout. They also posted multiple photos of the new beer can design in front of the In-N-Out sign and food, continuing to ride on the coattails of In-N-Out. The marketing strategy was successful, as the new stout sold out quickly.

This In-N-Stout has not been the first or the last of Seven Stills’ infringement marketing ploys. The replacement design for In-N-Stout featured a silhouette of Kanye West, filled in with lyrics from one of the singer’s recent songs. Previously, Seven Stills has also produced beer cans with an uncanny resemblance to the product design of Swedish Fish and TNT Fireworks. Whether there will be any trademark misappropriation suits and how long Seven Stills can thrive on this market strategy are highly-focused.

Citations:

Brendan Weber, ‘In-N-Stout Beer’ Spurs Punny Cease and Desist Letter from Burger Chain, NBC Bay Area (Aug. 15, 2018, 10:43 AM), https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/In-N-Stout-Beer-Punny-Cease-and-Desist-Letter-490937491.html.

Luis Gomez, ‘In-N-Stout’ Beer Offends In-N-Out. Burger Chain Crafts Response Full of Beer Puns, San Diego Union-Trib. (Aug. 15, 2018, 12:25 PM), http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-in-n-stout-beer-offends-in-n-out-trademark-20180815-htmlstory.html.

Mark Saunders, In-N-Out Sends Pun-Laden Cease and Desist to California Brewery over ‘In-N-Stout’ Beer, 10 News – San Diego, California (Aug. 15. 2018, 6:13 PM), https://www.10news.com/news/in-n-out-sends-cease-and-desist-to-california-brewery-over-in-n-stout-beer.

Seven Stills (@sevenstills), Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/p/Bmji3gxnLkG/ (last visited Aug. 31, 2018).

Seven Stills (@sevenstills), Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/p/Bk1h6pnnyin/?taken-by=sevenstills (last visited Aug. 31, 2018).

Seven Stills (@sevenstills), Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/p/Blo896Bnu2L/?taken-by=sevenstills (last visited Aug. 31, 2018).

By: Cody Andrushko

Drones (also known as Unmanned Aircraft System (“UAS”)) are currently a subject of controversy within the United States and globally due to the potential safety, security, and privacy threats that people face when exposed to them. Currently, drones are operated both for recreational and commercial purposes.

Tethered drone, a hybrid field of drones, has recently seen new innovation and implementation. Companies, such as Fotokite, who recently was awarded one million dollars in the GENIUS NY business accelerator competition, has developed patented flight control processes that enable kite-like operation

Tethered drones, as opposed to free-flying drones, have potentially three significant advantages: (1) power, (2) security, and (3) control.

Having the device tethered has allowed companies to develop drones that can be continually powered for prolonged operation. As a result, tethered drone devices and services have seen recent marketing to municipal governments for implementation within police forces and fire departments. Tethered drones often offer better vantage points and larger perspectives than current tools used, which enables first responders to better assess quickly evolving and often-dangerous situations, where information saves lives. Drone cameras can be outfitted with an array of sensors, which can enable tethered drones to be tailored to particular market sectors, such as infrared cameras for fire departments.

Tethered drones have seen practical application by the secret service that is operating an undisclosed model of the tethered drone while protecting President Trump. Tethered drones will likely see larger implementation for security purposes in the future, as they are often: portable; designed for quick set-up; able to provide aerial imaging (for often larger and better perspectives); enabled to operate for a long period of time permission; and incorporated with video feed and control software that can be hard lined into the drone, which enables more secure operation.

Further, the tether enables operators to have more control over the device. While the drone still has a radius of movement, the tether enables more control when unforeseen weather or operation issues occur because it is still limited by how much tether has been provided.

However, although some people seek to avoid UAS regulations by tethering their drone and arguing that it is more akin to a balloon or kite, than a drone; the FAA does not agree. The FAA addressed this issue in a recent document [Docket No.: FAA-2015-0150], “…a small unmanned aircraft that uses powered systems for actions such as propulsion or steering is not a balloon or kite subject to part 101” and further states that “the definition of small UAS in this rule includes tethered powered small UAS.”

 

Citations:

1. Patrick C. Miller, Swiss company Fotokite wins $1 million business competition, UAS magazine (April 25, 2018), http://uasmagazine.com/articles/1848/swiss-company-fotokite-wins-1-million-business-competition-award.
2. US Patent No: US 9446858 B2, https://patents.google.com/patent/US9446858B2/en?q=tethered&q=drone&status=GRANT.
3. Trevor Mogg, Tethered drones to help Secret Service provide security for president, Digital Trends (Aug. 3, 2017), https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/secret-service-drones-president-security/.
4. Billing Code 4910-13-P, Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf.